RT vs via

It recently transpired on a twitscussion (http://twitter.com/shepherdnick/status/1870638832) about the difference between RT (Retweet) or using (via @).  This blog (http://blog.atebits.com/2009/01/rt-vs-via-round-2/) was one I found (and one of the main culprits) after searching for RT vs via.  He actually acknowledges the difference between the two, and it’s something that I also wanted to talk about, or when I think would be appropriate to use each.
Okay, so we have Retweet (RT).  Retweet is generally regarded as a re-post of a tweet verbatim, giving all credit to the original author of the tweet.  It might have the following syntax (as is common):
RT @username: <message>
–preposition
1. by a route that touches or passes through; by way of: to fly to Japan via the North Pole.
to reword a tweet (maybe even a link) into our own tweet with our own input into what we think about it, but giving some of the credit to the original poster of the material. Note however, that this doesn’t have to have originated with a tweet, it could be given to you over IM, real life, or magazines etc.  It might have the following syntax (as is common):
<message> (via @username)
Where I would use both
Last week I made two tweets in the same day, both using each syntax differently.  I have two “sets” of friends which I can quite easily say, very rarely likely to meet each other or know each other as well as I know either of them.  Lets look at the tweets:
RT @bekishepherd: And the degree is done! [weyhey! Congrats BEGGY!😀😀 :D]
4:09 PM May 20th from DestroyTwitter
Anyone else noticed Saria’s Song and Postman Pat have the same beginning of intro: http://tr.im/lS9t http://tr.im/lS9z [via H]
1:44 PM May 20th from DestroyTwitter
Retweet – I retweeted my sister after she made this tweet (and also added a bit more to the end of it) because I wanted to let all of my friends know (both sets, who she doesn’t follow) know that she’s finished her degree.  The aim was that they would see her user name and reply to her or me to pass on their congratualtions too.  It was something I was sure that most people would not ever have seen if they hadn’t have gone looking for it, but that I would want other people to see.  This is how you appropriately use Retweet.
Via – Here, “H”, a person who I work with, sent me those links over IM in work.  He doesn’t have a twitter account so I couldn’t link to a tweet that he made, however, I still felt it neccesary to include him in the tweet, because it’s quite cool and interesting, and he deserves credit.  I didn’t retweet him because he didn’t make a tweet, and I made up all of the tweet myself with the exception of the idea.  This is the correct way to use via.
It originally frustrated me because the original author of the blog post for tweetie (a Mac and iPhone app) acknowledged the difference between RT and via, and then blatantly went back on what he was saying and left the option out of the app (since writing the blog I believe the app does have the option now but it “very deeply hidden in the settings”).  This is bad because he’s blurring the distinction that he quite clearly made for users of his app and really, not helping the situation.  If he’s going to provide the functionality of re-posting blogs verbatim, leave off the (via @username) on the end of the tweet.  It’s the wrong usage (and the incorrect usage of the ENGLISH WORD) of the word via, and rather than not filling twitter up with RT spam (like he claims), he’s actually filling it up with incorrect spam, which I think is even worse.  If you’re trying to make something better or clearer for a service that a lot of people use, that you would prefer was being used correctly; hiding the definition from them is not the way to do it, education is the way forward.
On a side:
It would be nice, regarding RT’s if it only retweeted back to people who follow you, if they don’t mutually follow you and the retweeter.
For example, say I was to retweet a friend of mine.  If you followed him (and obviously followed me too) then you would not see the retweet because you’d have seen the original.  The only people to see the retweet would be someone like my sister, who doesn’t follow anyone else I know. She follows me, so sees the tweet; and people who follow me and the retweetee, don’t. Simple – a bit less spam for the people who’re seeing duplicate tweets, and more spam for the people who’ve not seen the original.

It recently transpired on a twitscussion about the difference between RT (Retweet) or using (via @).  This blog was one I found (and one of the main culprits) after searching for RT vs via.  He actually acknowledges the difference between the two, and it’s something that I also wanted to talk about, or when I think would be appropriate to use each.

Okay, so we have Retweet (RT).  Retweet is generally regarded as a re-post of a tweet verbatim, giving all credit to the original author of the tweet.  It might have the following syntax (as is common):

RT @username: <message>

We use via

–preposition
1. by a route that touches or passes through; by way of: to fly to Japan via the North Pole.

to reword a tweet (maybe even a link) into our own tweet with our own input into what we think about it, but giving some of the credit to the original poster of the material. Note however, that this doesn’t have to have originated with a tweet, it could be given to you over IM, real life, or magazines etc.  It might have the following syntax (as is common):

<message> (via @username)

Where I would use either

Last week I made two tweets in the same day, both using each syntax differently.  I have two “sets” of friends which I can quite easily say, very rarely likely to meet each other or know each other as well as I know either of them.  Lets look at the tweets:

Retweet:

RT @bekishepherd: And the degree is done! [weyhey! Congrats BEGGY!😀😀 :D]
4:09 PM May 20th from DestroyTwitter

via:

Anyone else noticed Saria’s Song and Postman Pat have the same beginning of intro: http://tr.im/lS9t http://tr.im/lS9z [via H]
1:44 PM May 20th from DestroyTwitter

Retweet – I retweeted my sister after she made this tweet (and also added a bit more to the end of it) because I wanted to let all of my friends know (both sets, who she doesn’t follow) know that she’s finished her degree.  The aim was that they would see her user name and reply to her or me to pass on their congratulations too.  It was something I was sure that most people would not ever have seen if they hadn’t have gone looking for it, but that I would want other people to see.  This is how you appropriately use Retweet.

Via – Here, “H”, a person who I work with, sent me the idea over IM in work.  He doesn’t have a twitter account so I couldn’t link to a tweet that he made, however, I still felt it necessary to include him in the tweet, because it’s quite cool and interesting, and he deserves credit.  I didn’t retweet him because he didn’t make a tweet, and I made up all of the tweet myself with the exception of the idea.  This is the correct way to use via.

It originally frustrated me because the original author of the blog post for tweetie (a Mac and iPhone app) acknowledged the difference between RT and via, and then blatantly went back on what he was saying and left the option out of the app (since writing the blog I believe the app does have the option now but it “very deeply hidden in the settings”).  This is bad because he’s blurring the distinction that he quite clearly made, for users of his app and really not helping the situation.  If he’s going to provide the functionality of re-posting blogs verbatim, leave off the “(via @username)” on the end of the tweet.  It’s the wrong usage (and the incorrect usage of the ENGLISH WORD) of the function via, and rather than not filling twitter up with RT spam (like he claims), he’s actually filling it up with incorrect spam, which I think is even worse.  If he wants to make twitter a better service with more original content, then he has to acknowledge that both RT and via exist in his app, and to his customers/users; hiding the definition from them is not the way to do it, it’s education.

On a side

It would be nice, regarding RT’s if it only retweeted back to people who follow you, if they don’t mutually follow you and the retweeter.

For example, say I was to retweet a friend of mine.  If you followed him (and obviously followed me too) then you would not see the retweet because you’d have seen the original.  The only people to see the retweet would be someone like my sister, who doesn’t follow anyone else I know. She follows me, so sees the tweet; and people who follow me and the retweetee, don’t. Simple – a bit less spam for the people who’re seeing duplicate tweets, and more spam for the people who’ve not seen the original.

~ by shepherdnick on May 27, 2009.

5 Responses to “RT vs via”

  1. Dear Nick.

    Please fix your RSS feed, so it doesn’t break google reader. (I suspect un-escaped chars etc? http://skitch.com/elsmorian/bt7yh/google-reader

    Love, Elmo.

  2. LMAO yes it did break it quite catastrophically. Maybe I should blog about it? Too much?

  3. Thanks Nick, this was really helpful.

  4. […] https://shepherdnick.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/rt-vs-via/ […]

  5. My family members all the time say that I am killing my time
    here at web, but I know I am getting know-how daily by reading
    thes fastidious posts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: