But you can up vote a tweet you like by favoriting it - it is just that
favoriting is very very underused - so much so that a lot of clients don't
seem to support it.  A RT is about injecting something you like into your
followers feeds because you think it will be of value to them.  It has a
slightly different meaning.  This is partly the reason why I suggest that
they make overhaul the favoritng at a minimum, so for a given tweet you can
see who favorites it, and seperate out re-tweets.

The issue with favorites is that are personal to a user and a tweet so are
not visible in the UI to everyone else (which is something that the RT seems
to be trying to solve), and also track re-tweets as they are two different

You can get a users favorites pretty easily.


2009/8/17 Beier <>

> Much agreed with Chris. I think the reason people use RT differently
> (resend original message, add + comment or - comment) is because of
> the fact that Twitter never standardized RT. Sometimes user changes
> the text randomly for the shear reason the msg is over 140. I'm not
> saying Twitter should change user behavior, no they are not. The new
> API doesn't stop user sending customized RTs. But it does standardize
> one thing, you can "vote up" for a tweet you like, and this is much
> needed for data mining. for example previously tracking RTs per tweet
> is easy, but tracking RTs per Twitter account is very hard and almost
> impossible, this new implementation makes it possible. it turns RT
> from unorganized data into organized and makes the data more useful
> for data miners. It's not perfect, but it will evolve as time goes on.
> On Aug 17, 3:56 am, Chris Babcock <> wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > janole <> wrote:
> > > If you just don't agree with a tweet and want to express it via a
> > > retweet, how can you do so with the proposed API? Seems to be
> > > impossible or am I missing something?
> >
> > The new retweet API does not circumvent any of the current methods of
> > expression. The only thing that it does is provide a method for
> > verbatim retweets that is appropriate on social, semantic and data
> > storage levels. It doesn't appear to be designed to handled "value
> > added" retweets. There's no reason that it should be. That mode of
> > expression is already served well enough by emergent behavior
> > surrounding the current API. Value added re-expression is an evolving
> > part of the Twitter experience. Codifying the current meme for that
> > expression would be counter-productive. This API is not attempting to
> > do that. It's only a provision for a meaningful, trackable, acceptable
> > "me too" message.
> >
> > So to discuss a post with which a user disagrees, the retweet mechanism
> > would *not* be used. That is a value added expression that would be best
> > served by linking or replying, depending on the scope of the
> > disagreement.
> >
> > Chris

Reply via email to