Twitter: RT vs. Via
Just a brief thing regarding this. For those of you who don't use Twitter, you may find this even more boring than those of us who do. But here goes.
There is a term in Twitter called "retweet" or "RT" for short. It's the only time I try to use the term "tweet," meaning "to post to Twitter," because "tweeting" just sounds…well, pretty goddamn stupid. Basically when you "retweet" you are simply passing along what somebody said. So if I had said "I wish I could get this flathead screwdriver out of my ear" and you RT'ed me, it would look like this
RT @Widgett I wish I could get this flathead screwdriver out of my ear.
This makes perfect sense to me. When you read that, you see "RT" and know that what's being posted isn't original. And then you see "@Widgett" and know, oh, that lunatic Widge said this. And then you read the rest.
Now some people have said you should credit the original poster with "Via" instead. So the Via post would look like this
I wish I could get this flathead screwdriver out of my ear (via @Widgett)
You probably see the problem right away. When you start to read that, you think the person Twittering it said it and is the "I" of the statement…until you get to the very end of the post and learn it was actually me who said it. And it doesn't seem like much to find that out later, but that changes the way you're reading the content. And confusing it, too: did @Widgett actually post that or did he just pass the info along to the re-poster who is now regurgitating that info?
There's nothing wrong with using RT and it actually makes more sense. And I know there's a whole line of Twitterologists who will tell you the proper way to structure a Twitter post and whatnot, but honestly, take all the time you'd spend worrying about that and work on your own content on your own site (or the necessary equivalent). Places where you don't have to worry about 140 character limits and if you want to name a source you can just name a source with a normal link.
All that being said, feel free to format your Twitter posts however you want. Just RT this one.
I'm kidding. Mostly.
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
My understanding of proper usage called for
RT @username tweet (via @usrname2)
This usage says that @username originally tweeted the post but usrname2 retweeted that which brought it to your attention. It is not necessary to give credit to the person that RTed the original tweet but it is nice since it gets their name out there for follows.
Well, basically the whole thing I saw was RT vs Via as I outlined. Just goes to show it's Twitter Anarchy out there! Hide the chickens!
What makes sense to me:
RT @user blah blah = I'm quoting user's post, maybe trimmed to fit
blah blah [link] (via @user) = user mentioned [link], and I think blah blah about it.
blah blah (h/t @user) = user made me think about this (maybe there's a link), possibly via an extra-Twitter channel.
The fact that this makes sense to me virtually guarantees that it will not become common usage. It is, nevertheless, what I do.
Yeah, that's pretty close to what I do. Which again, means it makes probably too much sense to be popular.
I couldn't agree more, I wish everyone would use RT when retweeting. The constant misuse of Via has also meant that it's hard to tell when a Via tweet is actually a Via tweet or just a RT. It's all very confusing. Now when I do a via I have to type "(found via…" to avoid any confusion.
thank you for stating the case for RT.
You're quite welcome, BH. Thanks for the comment.