I think adding threading to the mix, and bringing items back to the top of the stream as they get "retweeted" solves these problems. Look at how FriendFeed does it:
-When you "like" something, you can comment on it, adding your own thoughts to the mix. -When people like or comment, it gets recycled back to the top of the stream, bringing attention back to it as though it were a new item in the stream. The more liked and more commented items get seen the most, just as though it were a whole bunch of posts by multiple users, except the stream isn't being polluted by duplicate entries of the same post, all with different comments attached. -Comments attached to each "retweet" (or "like" in FriendFeed's case) are all trackable by the original poster and others in an organized manner. I don't think the "retweet" makes full sense until threading is added to the mix, and it will only have the full effect if those Tweets go back to the top of the stream every time someone "retweets" it. Jesse Stay CEO, SocialToo.com http://staynalive.com/consulting http://staynalive.com/speaking Co-Author, I'm on Facebook--Now What??? Author, FBML Essentials On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Dan Brickley <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Chris Messina <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Just for review's sake, here's what Twitter is proposing for their > combined > > retweet feature: > > http://mashable.com/2009/09/18/sneak-peek-project-retweet/ > > http://a1.twimg.com/example-retweet-ui-18-sep-09.png > > The relevant thread: > > > http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-api-announce/browse_thread/thread/3641a248d555da20/c0eb496105eece3c?show_docid=c0eb496105eece3c&pli=1 > > > > Thoughts? > > This is tough one. > > The current lack of provenance information for retweeted items makes > things difficult for grassroots journalism / eye-witness scenarios. > For example there were hundreds of reposted variants of: > > """From Iran: CONFIRMED!! Army moving into Tehran against protestors! > PLEASE RT! URGENT! #IranElection""" > > ...bouncing around during June. Tracking the claim to source or > evidence was pretty much impossible (a few more details at > http://danbri.org/words/2009/06/16/415 ). > > So - having something like RT pushed down into the protocol makes sense > there. > > If I understand it correctly the current RT API proposal seems > problematic, for two reasons: > > * limits textual expressivity: you basically get to re-broadcast the > item, but without changing any words > - no scope for adding commentary, humour, skepticism ("WTF!" being a > common and concise form...) > - no support for messages crossing natural language boundaries, since > text can't be rewritten/translated > - for common case where the item is a pair of a URL link and brief > comment, being able to add/edit/replace the comment seems particularly > useful (translation use case above, but also for dialog/debate) > > * limited API expressivity: at a mechanical level, the only > expressivity offered to users is effectively "Hey, I noticed this, > check it out!" > - this may end up conflating a re-tweet with an endorsement, > encouraging people to only draw attention to ideas, links and posts > they agree with > - reminds me of those anti-dialog Facebook groups that conflate > joining the group (which is needed for posting) with agreeing to the > group owner's main assertion (who would want to join "1000,000 strong > against the moon landing conspiracy"; "Redheads Go Home" etc...?); > similarly, YouTube conflates bookmarking with favouriting, which has a > similar social awkwardness - if I want to keep track of videos I > disagree with, I end up expressing that I "Like" them. > > I raise these concerns with no concrete counter proposal. But perhaps > some principles can be used to ground any API design? > > 1. Users should be able to draw attention to an existing post, using > mechanisms that > > * make it mechanically clear and unambigous which post is being referenced > * do not encourage this act to be interpreted as necessarily an > approving or endorsing act (see also the whole rel='nofollow' debate > re blog comments) > > 2. Annotations / commentary / qualifications on re-posted material are > critically important; these can usefully be either machine or human > readable: > * we might allow textual additions / edits to be packaged some how > with the reposted item > * or allow API-level (ie. machine friendly) labelling of the kind > of repost (without, at this stage, imposing a rigid standard schema). > For example, POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, etc tags/labels on a re-post might be > one possibility > * without the editing, tagging, or classification of re-posts, > we're left with a system lacking human warmth, character or the > benefit of the varied perspectives of the various people who do all > this re-posting. > > The SEO scene is also following this topic quite closely, eg. see the > critique, discussion and background info (slideset with RT stats) > http://danzarrella.com/mangle-retweets.html > > That post claims (see slides at > http://www.slideshare.net/danzarrella/the-science-of-re-tweets?src=embed > ) that > > * less than 1/4 of all tweets (on twitter; I haven't seen > statusnet/identica stats) contain links > * over half retweets contain links > > If this is the case, I suggest it's worth thinking about this idiom > explicitly, whether at the API/protocol level or at the UI level. > > cheers, > > Dan > _______________________________________________ > StatusNet-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.status.net/mailman/listinfo/statusnet-dev >
_______________________________________________ StatusNet-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.status.net/mailman/listinfo/statusnet-dev
