I know what you’re thinking: Who died and put me in charge of Twitter etiquette?
No one. I’m exercising the inalienable right granted to me by the blogosphere to express every opinion I have, whether you asked for it or not, and whether I know what I’m talking about or not.
Today’s rant is about two Twitter behaviors — both regarding retweeting — that really need to stop.
The first involves Follow Friday behavior. If someone recommends you in a #FF tweet, congratulations. Feel free to thank the referrer in a direct message. A “@referrer Thanks for the #FF!” tweet is even OK (just don’t overdo it).
But, for God’s sake, do NOT retweet the original #FF tweet. You look like a self-serving, egotistical jerk when you do that. I mean, really, are you that starved for attention?
The second behavior is even more deplorable than the first.
Some people maintain multiple twitter IDs. If you do that, you probably have a good reason why. But do you think that those of us who follow you don’t know that the tweets from the multiple IDs are coming from the same person?
You do know that? Then why the hell do you retweet your own tweets? Who do you think you’re fooling?
Is this a ploy to increase your Twitter rank, Twitter score, or some other completely misguided methodology designed to make you think your tweets are insightful and deceive you into thinking that you are somehow influential?
If you do either of these things….wait, what am I saying, of course you don’t do these things. Nobody who reads this blog would do those things.
So, if you know someone who commits these retweeting faux pas (damn, what’s the plural of faux pas?), please show them this blog post.
Next up in the Twitterquette series: How to deal with stupid-ass tweets like:
“PREDICTION: Old media that doesn’t innovate and/or collaborate with new media will be extinct media in the next 5 years.”
(Hat tip to @WorkingOnStep2 for alerting me to the above crime).
Your suggestions for correcting bad Twitter behavior are welcomed.
Well, Ron, I agree and disagree with you. I agree with your comments on the #FF thing. It also annoys me when people RT the #FF post.
But, on the RT of your own tweet. Well, I am an offender. But, I don’t think I am hiding anything. I assume 99% of my followers know it is my tweet from my other account. I do it because it is efficient given a 140 character limit.
For example, I have a twitter account for CU Chat Up (@CUChatUp). I will post my show updates and links from that account. And, then RT that post from my @CarlaDay account. Why? Because it is efficient. I don’t have to say what the show name is or site name is from the @CUChatUp account, it is a given. When I RT it, the show name is is there as the @ twitter name as well.
Mostly, there are different people following me on each account.
It isn’t about appearing more influential or raising some arbitrary score, it is just easier to do it this way.
If I want to tweet an article or something not related to the show, community or blog, then I usually just tweet it from both accounts if appropriate. In that case, I wouldn’t RT from one account to the other.
Do I think I am breaking twitter etiquette? No.
Do I think others do? Yes.
It is all about the context.
But, I would love to hear comments from my followers if they do not agree. Not that I will change how I do it, but I will always listen to feedback.
Strategically guilty. Working for the Texas Credit Union League’s training department, I do run multiple accounts, each with their own purpose:
CUTrng – not so much a social site, but a place for those who are interested in getting updates aboud ucoming education events.
CUConference – a place where I live blog when on site and post occasional event updates. Don’t want to bombard regular followers, expecially out of credit union industry, with messages they are not interested in. Also don’t want to risk running folks off because of too many posts in a short period of time over a couple of days.
TechMecca – an unique environment where bank and credit union audiences/service providers co-exist.
SCMSJanine – This is where my nest is, a blend of professional and personal where connections go beyond the scope of credit unions and training activities. The most cool place where connecitons are made, information and view points are shared, and collaboration evolves.
Delighted to see folks wrestle with business and social applications of these type venues.
First thing first, the plural of “faux pas” is TADA “faux pas” (isn’t that just a marvelous language to create confusion? – I know, we had this discussion before).
Concerning identities, I happened to learn not long ago, that even mentally sane persons have two brains – left and right (I’m still wondering what happens to ambidextrous people). When your left brain just happen to read the awesome tweet your right brain has just produced (or vice versa – another French word, even if we must confess we took credit from distant Latin ancesters) it seems just natural that the opposite brain bows in respect and let the wider world know about this piece of jewelry.
Social Media is supposed to be all about conversation. I think that hearing all the communications happening between our different brains is just a fair contribution to the wisdom of crowds.
Frederic: This reminds me of a line Steve Martin used to use when he did stand-up comedy: “Those French have a different word for everything!” So, if the plural of faux pas is faux pas, then Steve is wrong.
Let me clarify something here. I understand the need for one person to maintain multiple Twitter IDs. No problem with that.
I also have no problem with that person tweeting the same thing under the multiple IDs.
But if you have the need to do that, then simply tweet the same thing in each of the IDs. Don’t RT your alter ego as if you “discovered” something brilliant that someone else said.
All of this is moot, of course, if you’re a certified schizophrenic.
Isn’t that simple cross-selling? Look, I offer these great insights here, but look at the other line of great insights I can offer under this other brand.
Ron,
Ahhhh….I remember the day when you dismissed Twitter entirely. And then caved openly to its allure. Now you seek to right the many wrongs in the Twitter-verse. Thank you for playing.
I blame the Twitter developers. When they GAVE us the Retweet button, everyone who has ever said or thought “What HE/SHE said,” went wild with we-tweeting. (A nod to Elmer Fudd).
I wish they would make the direct message button more accessible. There are so many conversations that should be taken outside. Those Twitter offenders are like the annoying guy in the restaurant talking on his cell phone way too loud with people sitting at his table. Take it outside buddy – we’re trying to enjoy ourselves here.
Ok, how about this: In addition to the “retweet” button, Twitter adds a new button: The De-Tweet button. After 10 people hit the de-tweet button on someone else’s tweet, that tweet is deleted from the Twitter stream, and the Tweeter is prohibited from tweeting for one hour.
And the @ attack button. If there are more than three direct exchanges between the same two @s they are automatically transferred to a detention room where they must listen to the women on The View for one hour. That’s the only way they will learn.
De-Tweet is 100% the best Twitter enhancement idea I’ve heard to date. Well done, sir!
I remember this sketch, but I thought Steve meant that French have a word different from the English word for everything, Voilà! – Hum, Steve is indeed probably wrong
I love the iPhone Twitter program Twittelator. It has a setting to mute or block users. You don’t have to unfollow them when they commit these faux pas, you can conveniently just shut them up for awhile and all along they can continue to think you are reading them. Maybe one needs to notify them that they have been muted because their habits don’t seem to change.
I agree with Denise that one needs an easier way to send the direct message. The chances of someone following 43,453 people seeing that @message are not that great.
Good post Ron. Are there anymore tweetiquette faux pas?
I think Denise’s suggestion about forced watching of The View is cruel and inhuman and fairly reasonable given societal norms of the Twitter-verse.
I was under the impression that the plural of “faux pas” was “five pas.” What’s a “pas?”
Personally, I “love” tweets that follow all the suggestions one gets from sources like Mashable. Stuff like: “Top 7 Reasons You Should Ignore My Top 3 Ways to Avoid Your Top 5 Ways to Re-tweet”
Pingback: CU Water Cooler » Blog Archive » CU Water Cooler 3/4
OK- I am also guilty of tweeting from TWO accounts- but certainly nothing to apologize for-
I tweet from @CardAnalysis and @CCardConnection- but the explanation is simple- one contains a “Credit Union” following and one contains a “Consumer” following-
No, I am not trying to keep score or maintain any silly Twitter status- could care less about such a thing.
My response would be as a “follower”- choose one account to follow- either the Credit Union side or the Consumer side- then you won’t get duplicate tweets-
Or the other option is to simply not follow me at all if it bothers you that much- after all, it is quality of followers, not quantity-
Ondine
Ondine — I don’t mean to imply that anyone is “guilty” of tweeting from 2 accounts. I completely understand your — and other people’s — need to tweet from multiple accounts. But why not just copy and paste the tweet from the 1st account to the 2nd account?
Retweeting has become a kind of sign of respect (ok, in the spirit of microblogging, micro-respect), that says “hey, I liked that tweet well enough to retweet it and pass it on to the rest of the world”. Doing that to yourself is kind of…I don’t know the right word…odd, no?
As for unfollowing, I don’t think I’d unfollow someone just for doing this. I do unfollow and then re-follow people all the time. Personally, I can’t stand minute-by-minute updates of conferences. Would prefer to read a blog post at the end of the day that summarizes what the speakers said. I’ll unfollow someone who’s live tweeting a conference, and then refollow them when the conference is over.
In some cases, people go thru streaks or phases. There’s one twitter friend who went through a phase of … [description deleted to protect his identity, since I think there's a damn good chance he'll read this] … when he get over that phase, I refollowed him.
Not sure if that happens with me or not, I don’t watch who unfollows.
As to your beef, you’re not alone. I think Twitter established rules about not giving credit where credit is due, and violating them can get an account suspended. If you find someone who’s done that to you, I hope you call him/her out on it.
Want to hear my “beef” with retweets? When people retweet one of YOUR tweets as their own- shameful and lacking originality-
Tweeting the same thing from 2+ accounts is fine. But people who retweet themselves from two accounts do so as self-promotion to build more followers. It always makes my unfollow finger twitchy.
Well said Ron. Twitter consists 80%+ of retweets, and behind many of the rationalisations contained in the comments here is an underlying thread of denial that simply proves out your point.
There is a meme developing amongst the likes of Arrington, Scoble, and Jeremiah that says the original point of Twitter and others has become so diluted by the likes of the things you describe that some better tools and ability to manage is needed.
Follow/ unfollow is always available, but its too binary, and hardly can be described as management of the issue.
Colin, I’m not sure Twitter had an original point. It was first used by a fringe of the population who adopted it for their own purpose, and who spent much time then discussing what they could do with Twitter. Adoption has grown, and human being is a social animal that diffuse a lot of its knowledge by filtering and repeating certain memes. With hindsight, it is only natural that the emergent use of Twitter is amplifying this behavior and pushes for the growing use of RTs. As a side effect, this is offering a way to capture the content and patterns of this diffusion.
I’m with you that we need better tools to manage what Twitter is currently delivering and possibly new tools to do more of what Twitter has allowed doing initially (continuous brainstorming sessions). But I don’t find this particularly surprising that we reach an overall ratio of 20% inception and 80% diffusion (and probably even much more on certain subjects).
@Colin and Frederic: The story I’ve always heard is that the creators of Twitter wanted a way for their friends to all keep track of each other. (I’m just as likely to believe the story that they wanted to make lots of money, but created a “nicer” story as a front).
Regardless, the tool has evolved (devolved?) into yet one more channel for marketers, and even worse, for individuals to use to support their “personal” brand. So for someone like Jeremiah — with 60k+ followers — to lament that Twitter has become diluted, strikes me as very disingenuous. Arrington, in particular: He has 25k followers, but follows 700.
If they wanted to “keep true” to the original purpose, they’d protect their tweets and only give access to people they knew.