text:
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Retweet the old fashioned way, using 'classic' or 'traditional' retweets only
Ironically, the most important feature on Twitter is one that Twitter itself did not develop, and has never adopted: the traditional retweet.
It was developed by the customers, on their own, and not by the company. And amazingly, to this date Twitter itself has never incorporated it, although doing so would be as easy as pie.
My advice to all Twitter users is that you should not use what Twitter calls a "retweet". It is a counterfeit, and does not have any of the key properties of a retweet. Just skip it.
The true, traditional "retweet" is the life blood of Twitter, and what has set it apart from other similar "microblogging" services. [See my blog post "The awesomeness of the RT" : http://is.gd/4PFbJ ]
Here's how to do a traditional retweet if you're accessing Twitter at twitter.com:
1. Copy and paste the message and name of person sending it to you.
2. Precede it by "RT @" [type "RT", then a space, then a @. It's important that the @ and the name NOT have a space between them].
I.e. it should start out like this: "RT @Username "
[Easier way: If you're using Firefox or Chrome as your browser, you can use the "Classic Retweet" button supplied by Jon Pierce's add-on "Classic Retweet 1.0". If you're set up with that, all you've got to do is hit the "Classic RT" button instead of the fake "retweet" button.]
It may be even easier if you're using a Twitter "client" or application.
If you're using Tweetdeck, Seesmic, UberTwitter, Plume, Janetter, Echofon, Tweetlist, or any of the other myriad "clients" and applications which support Twitter and other microblogging platforms, many provide a way to incorporate the "traditional retweet" as your retweet method of choice. Each uses different terminology, sometimes quite peculiar, such as e.g. "quote", "edit and reply", "Edit and RT", "retweet with comment", etc., and many do not allow you to set up classic retweets as your preferred, default method, but do allow you to choose the classic retweet when you're actually doing the retweet. If your app doesn't enable you to do classic retweets, you should consider replacing it with an app that does.
E.g., in Tweetdeck for Chrome, if you want to do a classic or traditional retweet, after you click the retweet icon you get a choice: "Edit and RT" or "Retweet". ALWAYS choose "Edit and RT" even if you have no intention of "editing". And you'll have a traditional, classic retweet [I usually do NOT edit, but know that I must check the "Edit and RT" option to get a true retweet, rather than a pseudo-retweet].
What's wrong with the thing Twitter mislabels a "retweet"
(1) You can't insert a comment, start a conversation, or join a conversation;
(2) you can't edit;
(3) instead of showing your avatar, it shows the avatar of the original tweeter, which might be someone your followers don't know or have any relationship with;
(4) it prevents you from seeing multiple versions with different comments from different people;
(5) if someone retweets you, it is difficult for you to learn that they did, you will have to go outside your conversational thread [e.g., on twitter.com, you have to wade through your "interactions" to see which of them are twitter-fake-retweets];
(6) if you retweet people, they will never learn that you did, unless they go through that same investigative process; i.e, except for the commercial accounts which use analytics & care a lot about the number of retweets, they will probably never learn that you retweeted them;
(7) your so called "retweets" either will not show up, or will show up in an inferior way, in Tweetdeck or any other Twitter "clients" or applications, and if they do show up, will not prominently display YOUR icon (they will prominently display only the icon of the author of the original tweet);
(8) a fake retweet has no URL and is therefore not searchable. It has no separate identity. It has no identity in, and will not show up in, any kind of twitter search, such as keyword and hashtag searches. Examples of how this undercuts the value of your twitter experience are too numerous to mention, but a stream come to mind.*
(9) you won't be found when people are looking for people to follow with similar interests;
(10) the identities of intermediate tweeters will never be known;
(11) in many instances, to the extent your identity is recognized at all by the recipients, they can't reply to you, or retweet you, or DM you, and may not even be able to verify your user name;
(12) it eliminates discussion;
(13) when the pseudo "retweet" is itself retweeted, whether by rubber stamp retweet or by traditional retweet, you won't be mentioned at all,
(14) if you want to be part of a "hashtag" "trending" event, your pseudo retweets have no impact, since they're not considered separate tweets... only classic retweets will count.
In sum, it takes the "social" out of "social media" by [a] eliminating conversation and interaction, [b] insisting on blind rubber stamping, [c] preventing you from letting your friends know you've honored them, [d] preventing you from knowing your friends have honored you, [e] making you invisible, [f] making it harder for you to meet new friends with similar interests, and [g] removing any clear indication of your identity to your existing friends.
One of the primary uses of the traditional retweet is not to 'repeat' something at all, but to start or continue a conversation, with 2, 3, sometimes even 4 or 5 people participating in a single tweet. In this type of classic retweet, you're repeating something in order to preserve the conversational thread. Here are a couple of everyday examples from some good conversationalists, who use traditional "retweets" as conversation:
The people who engage in such conversations are the people having the most fun of all on Twitter and are the coolest communicators here.
Twitter's pseudo retweet makes such engagement and interaction impossible.
Twitter's management thinks Twitter is for information only and is not supposed to be "social", and that a retweet is for the purpose of repeating, or rubber stamping, the original tweet.
Why did Twitter do this?
My guess is that it has to do with appealing to Twitter's "business" customers (read "paying" customers) -- corporations, celebrities, social media professionals, major news media -- who do not themselves retweet but who wish to be retweeted by others, making it easier to quantify their "impressions", and to enhance their visibility at the expense of the rest of us. Twitter thinks it can make more money from its advertising [euphemistically termed "promoted tweets"] by being able to quantify the number of repetitions they receive.
If you fall into the trap, your interactivity with your friends is shattered, and your visibility to your friends is removed.
Even the "paying" customers for whose benefit this was done are being screwed, although they may not realize it. Instead of becoming a part of the Twitter conversation, they're just getting the same type of paid advertising spam they could have bought anywhere else. And if they do get rubber stamped, they're being 'rubber stamped' by the least experienced, least visible, least influential, people on twitter -- since those of us who are knowledgeable are likely to avoid touching the rubber stamp button like the plague.
This is my advice:
1. Don't use Twitter's so called retweet function.... ever.
2. Use genuine, traditional retweets only.
3. Configure any twitter apps which you may be using to do traditional, rather than 'rubber stamp', retweets. If yours cannot readily be configured to do that, drop it and use one that can. Period. [see "How to set up your twitter apps (or "clients") to do traditional retweets rather than rubber stamp retweets"].
Some people ask "what if the original tweet is too long"? I say that if you really can't shorten it, edit it, or use a "longer tweet" service, then forget it. Why punish your followers by injecting spam into their stream? Your followers are looking for stuff from you, not from strangers. Stuff from strangers, which they didn't ask for and don't recognize, has a name: it's called s.p.a.m. [When people complain that they've been seeing a lot of tweets in their stream from people they don't recognize, that's because of peeps using twitter's rubber stamp button].
The "length" problem should become less and less of a problem, as automatic "elongated tweet" features become more and more available. For example, see Twitlonger and Twtmore
* [a] In the 2010 round of Shorty Awards voting, people were advised that one way to vote was by retweeting. The retweet votes were retrieved through Twitter search with the aid of Twitter hashtags. Apparently none of the votes lodged by the "fake retweet" button were counted, since the tweet had no URL, hence no identity, of its own. It is unclear what votes were or were not counted in the 2011 Shorty Awards. [b] Many tweeters, and many internet twitter applications, use keyword searches in Twitter search to find new people to follow who share similar interests; all use of Twitter's pseudo-retweet is excluded from such searches (Let's say, for example, I am looking to find new people to follow who are interested in indigenous peoples' rights, and use the hashtag #indigenous or the term "indigenous" to locate them. Or let's say I'm asking Mr. Tweet or some other application which helps with "friend finding" to find me people who tweet using the keyword "indigenous". And let's say you're someone who constantly uses twitter's fake retweet technology to send out tweets using the hashtag #indigenous. I will never even learn of your existence, because my search will turn up NONE of your pseudo-retweets. The poor saps who use Twitter's fake retweet are constantly losing opportunities to make new friends who share similar interests.)
(Short URL for this post: http://goo.gl/P8IFAi )
130 comments:
You know, you tweeted me back once after I RT'd you the newfangled way from the web asking me to do it the original way, but for convenience I've kept using their RT button. Didn't really put any thought into the consequences. (I don't ever say this, but thanks for doing some thinking for me.) I am a changed man. I'll go back to the old-school, user-created, actually social use of Twitter as suggested. Thanks for the post.
ReplyDeleteGreat stuff Ray.
I get around this (and so do many of my Followers) by setting up a retweet like this:
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country (via @RayBeckerman)
or (by @RayBeckerman)
This puts it into the stream and allows everyone (including search) to see the retweet.
I wholeheartedly agree with you!Although I am not a huge fan of twitter's "retweet" function, it can be useful when someone's tweet has too many characters for a traditional "RT". Updated versions of hootsuite, ubertwitter and other hosts DO in fact notify you in a regular @mention when someone retweets you using Twitter's web-retweet function. Not all, but many hosts are starting to do this. If I have nothing to add of my own, I will often use twitter's retweet function. But you are absolutely right - to make it a social experience, the RT opens up the opportunity of engagement. The only thing I do not like about the traditional RT is that it then makes your tweet un-searchable in programs like "tweetdoc". Tweetdoc allows you to do a search of tweets using keywords and then creates a PDF of all the tweets discussing the term you searched. It will omit any tweets that have "RT" in it. Truly unfortunate!
ReplyDeleteWow, Aisha.... that's the first time I ever heard of tweetdoc. Very interesting that they're filtering out of their search tweets with "RT" in it: twitter itself tried that, and within 24 hours thought better of it, and reversed itself. Within a few days later the filter had been scrapped.
The answer to that problem is simple: don't ever use "tweetdoc" -- whatever that is -- for your searches.
Use twitter's integrated search or http://search.twitter.com instead.- KristinJuly 14, 2010 at 4:28 PM
Actually, you can make a new RT from a tweet by clicking on "etc." and select "Retweet with comment"
ReplyDelete Thanks, Ray. I totally agree that RT is a great way to engage multiple users in a conversation. The few times I used the "fake" RT function were the times when the original tweets maxed out the character limit and so great in their original form and content that any attempt on my part to shorten it would diminish that which makes the tweets worth retweeting in the first place.
My concern (about using the "real" RT as a way to converse with others) is due to occasional complaints from some of my followers about RT replies clogging up their streams, especially if the people in the conversation are those they don't/don't want to follow. Is there a way around that?
Also, I recently became a first time victim of another kind of fake RT wherein someone tweets: Love this! Thanks for a reco! RT @(me) Take a look. Great deal. http://linktospamsite.com Basically, any spammers can get away (at least for a time) with making up a tweet and attribute it to someone and making it look like the link is first tweeted (and endorsed) by that person. It doesn't happen often, but there doesn't seem to be anything one can do to prevent that. Twitter's "fake" retweets, on the other hand, ensure the retweets come from the original source. Advice?
And then there's that whole issue about people's tweets being misconstrued due to bad editing on the retweeter's part ...
If there are ways to get around these issues, there's really no need to use Twitter's fake retweet button at all, I think.1. Yes Leela, there's an easy way to limit the circulation, one which I use myself frequently. When you don't want a purely conversational retweet to wind up in everybody's stream, just make sure that it starts off with "@username", with username being one of the folks participating in the conversation. That way it will only wind up in the streams of people following both you and username.
2. I've occasionally seen faking of the type you describe; sometimes it's just incompetence, sometimes it's sinister. In either event what I do is "block & report". To me, sending out misleading stuff is a big no-no.Ray, Thank You for drawing such articulate attention to this issue.
Please Tweet it often for new people who don't understand.
Your points were my very first reactions the day I found this nasty "thing" on Twitter. I thought, "Oh god, where's my chance to edit this or say anything? This is no good--it really sucks!" so, after 2 or 3 learning curve tweets, I stopped using it immediately.
Thank You, Ray, for formally saying what a lot of us are thinking. :)Thanks, guys. My pleasure.
It's surprising to me, but a lot of people just don't get it, which is why I "re-tweet" the article from time to time.
Every single time I tweet the article I get tweets which evidence that even after allegedly looking at my article, many people still don't understand what it says.
This morning, e.g., I got one tweet saying that twitter's rubber stamp retweets are better for getting the retweeted person into "top tweets" (duh), and another one saying they use the rubberstamp-retweet when they have nothing to add (as if adding something was the only reason to use the traditional retweet).
BTW the people who make these comments almost always send tweets rather than blog post comments, so that you guys never get to see them, or correct them.
Frustrating.I respectfully disagree. I use Twitter's intrinsic retweet about as often as I use "RT", both have their place.
I could probably write a dissertation on when/where/what that place is, but I'll say the main value of Twitter's retweet is simply for passing along information that is already packaged nicely, will reach an audience that otherwise wouldn't see it, and needs no further commentary.- Free Range CookieOctober 24, 2010 at 2:52 PM
And if you've tried the new twitter - rubber stamp retweets don't offer any clues at all of where the retweet came from. I kept thinking "do I follow that person?" Very confusing.
I'll do my best from now on to resist pressing twitter's shiny retweet button. I agree with this. I do use the new form of retweet occasionally, but I have noticed a couple of things:
1. If you use lists in Tweetdeck, which I do, you won't ever see any of the official form of retweets, only traditional ones. The visibility of anything you retweet using the official form is completely compromised.
2. Sites that monitor retweets only seem to notice traditional retweets, not the new form.
3. Clients often don't update your mentions column with official retweets until hours after they're made, and don't notify you (this at least is true of Tweetdeck) that somebody has retweeted your tweet. If, like me, you're posting your own work and want to thank people for the added promotion, it's embarrassing if you miss people's retweets because they're only added hours after the fact, in order, so they're lost under every other mention you've had since you posted. I'm big on Twitter etiquette and saying thanks for that kind of support, and it's frustrating that I often miss people's retweets because of this.good piece - and i almost entirely agree (like many ppl who've commented sometimes use the twitter RT without comment...some tweets speak for themselves!).
I find that the desktop version of Tweetdeck is great for RTing with (or without) comments from multiple accounts - sometimes i want to RT something from an account not following the original tweeter.
Where i struggle is on my Ipad where the Tweetdeck app is lightweight compared to desktop version. The official Twitter app is better - but doesnt make it easy to RT with comment...it offers a 'quote tweet' function, which allows you to add/edit. BUT (for reasons i cannot understand) it wraps the tweet in quote marks, rather than just prefacing it with RT. makes no sense. highly irritiating and inhibits my RTing when i'm not at my PC.
guess i need to find a better Ipad app...but so far nothing's doing it for me.
Good post, thanks
TobyI disagree on every level. Retweeting was broken until Twitter made it official.
Firstly, retweeting has reached epidemic proportions. If you follow lots of people with similar interests you end up seeing the same tweets over and over again. If your feed gets too clogged up with stuff you simply don't need to see, Twitter becomes unusable.
The second, and more annoying, problem is that a huge number of people are simply doing it wrong. Many users are getting confused with 'via'.
When a user copies someone else's tweet and uses via instead of RT, they're implying -- admittedly unintentionally -- that this is their work. Equally annoying is the practice of retweeting the wrong person: when retweeting a retweet, the original tweeter should get the RT, and whoever brought it to your attention gets the via.
Plus traditional retweets let other users mess with what you've written, which they often have to in order to shorten the message to fit the RT text. It's all about attribution.
Read more: http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/no-retweet-no-surrender-49303695
Or just don't bother retweeting, and think of your own interesting things to say on the subject. You can probabaly tell I don't like retweets at all...There's a problem with "traditional" Retweets at scale when hashtags get involved. If I'm using a hashtag to look for all conversations around something that is currently happening, and something has been retweeted a few dozen times the "traditional" way, then any conversation is quickly flooded. The "new-style" retweet would only put that tweet into view once - but at the top of the search.
I'm not disagreeing with any of your points on the merits of the "traditional" way, but for that reason alone, I think the new one is better for Twitter on the whole being more social and conversational. Because the great strength of Twitter isn't having a chat with your close circle of friends (which is a job that Facebook does perfectly well on a larger scale); it's about more open conversations with wider networks.
Your point (5) does highlight a more significant annoyance, but I think that's more to do with the UI than the underlying system (one which could be fairly easily fixed by a twitter app developer, or by adding a similar alert to that for @mentions on the main Twitter.com page.)You're wrong, but that's fine because no-one is right about Twitter.
The biggest problem with old-style retweets is people editing content in and out of them, producing a Chinese whispers trail of inaccuracy. I've had my words mangled and pre/suffixed so badly in the past that I'm firmly against the RT-with-comment camp now.
If you want to point to something interesting on Twitter use the RT function.
If you want to comment on a tweet outside of the overlap between you and the tweeter, link to it or something.
But don't mess with people's words. That's just rude.Yes of course it's important to do the traditional retweets in such a way as to make it clear who is retweeting and who is doing the retweeting.
Each has his or her role to play. The retweeted is the author. The retweeter is MY TRUSTED FRIEND whose tweets I've signed on to receive and read.
Attribution is at the heart of it.
If I were to retweet someone without making it clear that I was retweeting them, it would defeat the whole purpose.
The pseudo-retweets provide undue attribution to the party being retweeted, and render MY FRIEND invisible. I am often unaware of who is the poor soul who pressed the rubber stamp retweet button.
If you don't mind being invisible, and want to send things to your friends that they don't recognize, then you might as well ignore everything I've said.I've found myself totally at odds with the majority of commenters.
My biggest objection to not using the programmatic "official" retweet is that I see the same thing over and over again. I hate it, and it wastes my time when I could be reading more interesting stuff.
As for your assertion that the manual retweet keeps the spirit of social networking alive, I can't agree with this either. If I want to carbon copy retweet something which is interesting to my followers, a common use case, I just hit the magic retweet button. If I wish to comment on or modify a retweet, a much less common use case for me, I haven't come across a client which lacks support for a quoted retweet (essentially the "good retweet" you describe). Two different use cases, and two different tools to achieve my aim.
Why aren't both types of retweet useful?
NeilTraditional RT has one epic fail that Twitter's version fixes though -- I don't get to see dozens of retweets of the same tweet (which, by the very nature of TWitter, probably wasn't worth reading the first time). For that reason alone, I'd encourage everyone to use the new retweet function unless they really have a worthwhile comment to add. Twitter really wasn't and isn't designed for meaningful conversations; if you're looking for those, you joined the wrong social media website.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a longer response on my blog that goes point-by-point to try and explain some of the positive reasons why official RTs work they way they do and why they benefit users and the ecosystem. I'm not sure what your policy is on linking like that in-line, though, so I'll snip what I think is the most important section here. My blog is linked via my username, but let me know if you want a direct link.
There are a lot of good reasons why the new retweets are better for the Twitter ecosystem, and they are not at all about the business and celebrity aspects:
- New retweets preserve the original statement and meaning as the author originally intended. Ever been misquoted, either by mistake or out of malicious intent, because someone paraphrased or edited something you said or wrote?
- New retweets preserve the identity of the original author and gives them due credit. Most clients (including Twitter.com) will treat that RT'd tweet in your stream as coming from the original author. When you star or RT it, or click through to the profile on that tweet, you get the original author, not someone else who just copied and pasted something they said. The original author gets credit and the best visibility for their work.
- New retweets don't inundated the original author's @ mention stream with tweets that are arguably useless and an actual retardant to the Twitter experience. The "retweet with comment" method (the 'traditional retweet' as some call them) isn't recognized by Twitter's mention system, so every "RT:" of something you wrote appears as a new mention. If a tweet starts really spreading, this can create a ton of useless clutter. Tweets are only 140 characters, and you don't have much room to add anything useful as a comment. Retweeting with comment to just add a "LOL!" or "this is nuts!" is useless and, I argue, an actual retardant to the Twitter experience. We all probably remember what we wrote when we tweeted something, so we probably don't need to see it tossed back at us 100 times with 100 RTs that have "LOL!" in front of them. If a tweet is funny, crazy, or essential to read, most people with even basic education should be able to figure that out for themselves. If you want to converse with the original author, there is nothing stopping you from sending a separate @reply after using the official retweet feature to RT something. If you want to create a conversation that everyone can see, there is also nothing stopping you from @mentioning the original author in the middle of a new tweet so both your friends *and* the original author see it.David, I don't see a single thing in your response that contradicts anything I've said.
If you're a "creator" of original twitter content, and you want your content to be distributed without comment, the rubber-stamp-retweet is fine for your purposes. Except, of course, that most creators of content would like their "content" to be discussed rather than rubber stamped.
I have never been "inundated" with the "useless clutter" you're referring to, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
My article is written from the viewpoint of one who wants to retweet something. If you want to retweet something, and decide to do a pseudo retweet instead of a traditional retweet, all you're accomplishing is:
-anonymously assisting the original tweeter, and
-burdening your 'followers' with something they don't recognize.
If you're happy doing that, than pseudo-retweet all you like.Thanks for a great blog & dialogue, Ray. There is infinite learning and perspective in social media, these sorts of blogs and collaborations via comment are educational, thank you for sharing. Has anyone tried these sorts of plugins to account for the difference discussed? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/241011/
Would love to hear feedback/thoughts.Ray: the anonymity of official RTs is a perception caused by bad Twitter client design. Plenty of clients properly both display the friend who retweeted something and give proper credit to the original author.
And I have to disagree with dubbing the introduction of a new person saying something interesting to one's followers as a "burden." If the point is to start a conversation and help each other find new people to follow, how is presenting an interesting new person to one's followers by retweeting something interesting they said a burden? It's a direct link to a new person and something good that they said.
If you've never been inundated with a chain of RT @user RT @user RT @user RT @user, then consider yourself lucky. But the fact is that with traditional style retweets, each new RT appears as a mention in someone's timeline. If someone gets 100 traditional RTs with "LOL!" and "this is awesome" interjected in the front, they get 100 mentions in their timeline that are, arguably, worth just about nothing. What value is that to the conversation? How is that a good thing for the original author? If someone wants to reply or start a conversation, then they can do that. But the majority of tweets have taken up about all of the valuable space that 140 characters can offer; you can't get much of worth in by injecting a comment in a retweet.The times I use the "twitter" retweet are the times when adding RT@username makes the tweet go over 140 characters. If I can't retweet without editing, then I'm not retweeting that user's original tweet. The "twitter" retweet function allows me to retweet without having to pare the tweet down to 140 characters.
When you use Tweetdeck it is very easy to see who has retweeted you, no matter what method they use. You don't have to use that long, complicated method that you described. It shows up along with your other mentions.Thank you Ray for once again posting a most comprehensive list of the reasons why only traditional retweets should be used!!
I've "met" - both online and off - absolutely AMAZING people because of retweets.
Given that Twitter considers itself a "news service" is it any wonder they do not comprehend the way people are using it to engage one another.I think there is one more often overlooked advantage to Twitter's official RT function that is worth mentioning: control over one's stream and experience. It's also something that has roots in the change Twitter made to the fundamental way @mentions are viewed between accounts that do and do not follow each other.
Let's say you and I mutually follow each other, and you follow @50cent, but I don't (for the sake of debate, feel free to interject any @name, such as a company you like, your favorite Website, or a politician you admire). Now let's say you retweet a lot of this @person's tweets because you think they're really awesome and all your friends should know about them.
Now, three scenarios. The first:
If I don't like this @person, I don't want to see tweets from them ***or replies to or about them,*** and you use the traditional RT system, my options for getting those tweets out of my view are limited. I can: 1) ask you politely to not tweet these things, 2) unfollow you, or 3) get a Twitter client designed for power users (which probably requires a paid license) which offers filtering features so I can filter the @name or other relevant keyword from my stream.
None are very good solutions, nor are they helpful to our relationship or either of our Twitter experiences.
Second scenario, which I argue is more preferable for both of us:
If I don't like this @person, I don't want to see tweets from them, and you use the official RT feature, I can simply block the @person from my account. That way I never see their tweets when you retweet them or really even know they exist on Twitter, yet you get to keep having your fun with sharing something you think is important to your followers.
A third scenario:
Let's say I *do* like this same @person and we both follow him/her/it, so I'm getting all their tweets, and so are you.
If you use old style retweets, that means I get the original tweet from @person, but I see yours as well. Same tweet, maybe with a "LOL!" or a "this is unbelievable" tacked on at the beginning, but now I'm seeing it twice. If more of my friend use the same traditional RT and add "holy crap!" and "OMG," I see it a third, fourth, fifth, and hundredth time, with comments that really are not adding anything to the conversation.
But if these hundred people use the official RT, I won't have to see all those syndications of the original tweet. Plus, since we both follow the same account, we've opted in to see conversations between friends and that account, and can participate willingly when we choose.Fair points here, but I think there are cases when you want to do both. There's even a case for distinguishing further, e.g. between "RT @whoever" as well as " ... (via @whoever)". Good piece, but "don't use the auto retweet, ever" is too strong for me - I'd say rather "be aware of the differences between the re-tweet types, and use them appropriately".
ReplyDeleteI just noticed you called people who use Twitter "customers". They're not - they're at best users of Twitter and at worse Twitter's product. Twitter's customers are advertisers and those who wish to buy and exploit their product - you and me. Sure, it's in Twitter's interest to keep its product happy, just as a farmer keeps his cows happy, but let's not get ideas above our station here.
And the end of the day Twitter is a flaky service held together with string, chewing gum and rainbow wishes. The reason official RTs are a disappointment is because Twitter hasn't developed them properly.I had a long winded reply, but Blogger horked up and stole it from me. I hate Blogger.
Anyway, you're wrong. Your complaints amount to "I can't take other people's words, post them under my own identity, and then give no credit back to their creator".
Basically, you're being a spammer.
Please, try to come up with original content instead of stealing other people's words and posting them as yourself. You're taking credit away from the original author. You're taking conversation and potential followers away from the original author. You're making Twitter harder to use for everybody who follows you.
Not that you'll be able to steal my words. I've blocked you on Twitter for this post. Generally, I block anybody who old-style-RT's me, because they're doing it wrong and I don't want them to be able to do it in the future, but for this post, I feel justified in a pre-emptive action.- paladinstormNovember 30, 2010 at 9:13 AM
Curious... I do know the auto-retweet attributes the person who last retweeted (the one on your follow list), so I find it curious why there's complaint about attribution with the 'auto-retweet' method. Admittedly, you don't know how the person you follow got the RT in the first place, but at least you do know who relayed it to you, and you can click on the tweet itself and get a listing of who's RT'd it.
A recent '@TSAgov' tweet was 'Retweeted by wilw and 85 others', for instance...
Not to say it solves one of the complaints, just pointing it out and being a bit of devil's advocate. I personally will probably generally continue to use the auto because I usually don't have anything to add, nor wish to spend more time with the tweet than I feel is necessary (which is usually just "read, click to pass on"). Well, it certainly is an issue which elicits conversation!
Balancing the "traditional" RT and its good points alongside the Button RT I find more of my values supported by the traditional RT method - I'm avoiding the button, although a few minutes ago I saw in the "stream" that I had used it (without knowing I had done so?) - I deleted it and did it the traditional way.
What gets lost via the button is the person.
My value is on the person.
Thanks.Your post is thoughtful and informative and I honestly didn't know about the so called traditional re-tweet button even though I have seen a few people use it on my TL.
My point here is, unless this so called traditional re-tweet is integrated into twitter by default,it will be quite impossible to sink down this message. Reasons being, how many percent of people do you think have the time to start doing the whole referencing thingy you stated here when they can just hit the re-tweet button and get the message across.
Also, if you have been studying twitter lately, their are two reasons people re-tweet. 1.) to spread the info on their TL to their followers ( in this case they dont require any follow up conversation.
2.) To continue a conversation thread...
People who do the later have tools that enable a conversation thread as well as editing like Ubertwitter, Tweetdeck,Snaptu, to mention but a few.
My point exactly: Your info is vital and will only be properly digested if it is addressed to twitter itself but if you want the public to adopt a pattern which a whole lot of them have no idea about, it will be like pouring water on a duck's back.
Bless!I really don't mind the Retweet button Twitter supplies. I even like it. I really don't see the problem. Sometimes a tweet doesn't need your comment; sometimes you just want to share what somebody else says with other people, without drawing attention to yourself. If you want to comment on a tweet, you can do the classic RT manually, no big deal.
You can blow a banal thing like that out of proportion, you know.Great advice but I do believe sometimes using the retweet button can be used to illustrate a narrative that you're currently following on your feed. For example, as a journalist, I'm following the events in Libya and after tweeting a news regarding fighting in a certain city, I'll often retweet the comment of a Journalist reporting from the area to introduce some colour into my feed. I understand I could simply CTRL+C the post and and use a RT tag but sometimes as background it's nice to have a different face & viewpoint popping up on the feed. That's just my opinion anyway.
@GoldenGatsbyThe two big advantages of new style retweet are that a) I don't get dozens of instances of the same retweeted message in my timeline, many with a pointless comment from the retweeter, and b) I can easily see who's retweeted what. Those two things make it far more valuable to me than old style manual retweets.
ReplyDeleteSam, the thing is people aren't usually reading YOUR feed. If all people did on Twitter is read other people's feeds then this whole article would have been unnecessary. I follow around 8500 people. If I were to read their feeds on their profile pages I would need about 500 hours a day in which to do it.
The reality is that we generally read our own "home" feed and the feeds of our lists.I will say that one thing I prefer about the Official Twitter Retweet button, is my ability to follow someone I find interesting, while at the same time disabling visibility on that specific users retweets. I find that I typically will unfollow interesting people if they post "RT" too often simply because they'll begin overbearing my stream.
Surely there are people who don't mind so much as myself though!- AnonymousMay 20, 2011 at 5:08 PM
I disagree to a large extent with some of the comments on here. Twitter is public, as such expect your conversations to be public, why are you worrying about people you don't know retweeting you? Expect it. Solves a lot of problems. My advice, if you don't wanting something Retweeted, don't post it in the first place. Twitter is an open bag of information, and your trivial rules about how to share that information ruin it for everyone. I will never abide by someone's arbitrary rules, especially if your premise is built around sharing content with your followers only.
ReplyDelete Thanks for posting this, Ray!
I have been tweeting since early 2008 and It took me awhile to come to terms with the "new RT" (which is no longer new, btw). But now I use both, and this is why:
Threaded conversation/context - Think of a RT as Facebook "like", a "dig," or a Google +1. You liked it enough to share it with your friends, but you wouldn't want to take credit for writing it. And there's plenty of space to explain why you liked it - just reply directly to the tweet.
Maybe one of the greatest values of Twitter for me is how New Twitter displays tweets so users can see all of the public responses and if there's a back-and-forth, we see the whole conversation. (As opposed to how old-style RTs are considered mentions and get lost in the "retweeter's" stream while not being easily available to other interested users).
Cleaner metrics - I like being able to see how many people have retweeted something I've said, read, or retweeted! An old style RT doesn't count toward this # and is erroneously counted as a Twitter "mention."
Filtering - my followers can opt not to see my new style retweets, which reduces the amount of space I take up in their timelines (and vice versa).
Attribution - The original author should get their due attribution including their picture next to the tweet with a link to their profile.
Brevity - if my commentary is just a few words, I don't expect a response from the author, I don't care whether the author's followers see my response, and I want all of my followers to see it… I might just use the old-style RT.
Download the Twitter Extender for Google Chrome to use the "old style" of retweeting in a single click: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ddcgpjemdlhkehjpibldielpoodpjgjc
Have fun and I'll see you on Twitter!
p.s. I use "MT" instead of "RT" if I modify the original tweet in any way…I just ended up here through a native Twitter retweet by someone I follow on Twitter. Through this process, several things claimed in this post have been immediately disproven.
Twitter's native retweet serves a distinct purpose: sharing something someone else has said quickly and without comment. At the same time, you are giving that person more support than with a traditional RT, because you are pushing their profile, their Twitter persona, instead of basically copying what they said and passing it off on your stream.
Instead of the person I'm following showing up in my feed, it was TweetSmarter I saw, someone I did not know of before, but now have been introduced to - by someone I follow. This is good because now I might be more interested in why someone I follow has promoted this person in this way, which will probably more likely lead to a follow.
Also, it cuts down on the lame part of the traditional RT: wasteful duplication. Most people don't add anything to a RT, so the new native retweet solves this quite elegantly by not making a bazillion copies of the same tweet. All of them point to the original one. If you know anything about SEO, you know this is a good thing.
Anyways, my larger point is this: why use the whole "RT" notation at all if you're going to share something someone said or linked to?
Instead of "RT @Username This is their message and I might add a word or two", if you really want to add something original to it, why not something like: "@Username said/linked something I liked, I liked it because bla bla, check it out"? Isn't that much better and more "organic"?
Twitter does have some work to do on their web interface, as far as better options to see who has retweeted you and such; in fact I think Twitter's current web interface sucks balls. It's horrible.
Yet on TweetDeck and other apps, you DO get informed when someone retweets you with native retweet. Twitter will probably improve their web interface with time to line up better with their new features.
And as far as the claim about "not starting a discussion" goes - I think this comment and the tweet I answered to both you and the person who retweeted you on Twitter disproves that point blank.Twitter's RT button is about as anti-social as it could be, making it difficult for people to connect and preventing content in RTs from evolving as it's shared.
I really believe that if more of the folks who work for Twitter actually spent a little more time connecting and engaging with other folks on Twitter, rather than treating their streams as private clubs, they'd understand immediately why this issue is such a sticking point. It's all about being social.There seems to be something new when using the Classic-RT-button add-on for firefox: it now says "link will appear shortened" . Seems great, but is not. Just because the next person who will try to retweet you, will have a broken link in the Rt then.
Another strategy to make us use the twitter button ???This is something interesting I'd like to point out, and I don't think you mentioned: Twitter DOES, at least now, recognize the manual retweet in some capacity: Let's say I retweeted something using the retweet button, and then I looked at my profile on the official Twitter app for BlackBerry, where it automatically shows your latest tweet at the top. Instead of showing the picture of the person whose tweet I RT'd, it would show my picture and say "RT @ladygaga: et cetera." When a retweet through the button cannot be properly expressed, the manual method is displayed. (The colon after the username seems to be very important.)
However, even if you DO manually retweet, using the colon and everything, Twitter doesn't count it as an actual retweet when you click on the tweet and it shows a list of "Retweeted by". Just thought I'd chime in!Also, mobile Twitter apps now have a "Quote Tweet" function where it puts quotation marks around the Tweet but then allows you to edit and/or add in your own message. It seems they're really trying to dismantle the traditional retweet.
As an additional note, if the retweet button is used and one clicks on the tweet itself, only TWELVE INDIVIDUAL USERS will be shown as having retweeted. And if more than 100 people have retweeted it says "Retweeted by So and So and 100+ others". Kind of lame. At least give us a number.I also usually do my own retweets. However, I think it's a bad idea to start with RT @...; I always put this at the end. The content is more important than the tweeter, and that's what I want to see when I'm scanning tweets, not who happened to forward it on (even if they're the original author).
More often than not I'll make changes to it, usually small to fit in the extra RT, but sometimes to provide a better summary (IMHO). In the latter case I use "via @…" to acknowledge the originator but distinguish the content.
If I'm not making any changes to the tweet I sometimes use Twitter's built-in version, but after reading this perhaps I won't anymore.- AnonymousSeptember 28, 2011 at 12:16 PM
I have a question about manually retweeting, and I apologize for my naivete: You said to "Copy and paste the message and name of person sending it to you" when doing a manual RT, but when you copy and paste someone's message that includes a link, it won't work. Is there a fix for that? Thank you! KG
ReplyDelete Dear anonymous KG... you raise a very important question.
Everyone, listen carefully to what I am about to say!
1. This is a new thing that Twitter is doing. About a month ago it started blocking the copying and pasting of URL's when using the twitter.com interface. You would 'copy' but when you 'pasted' the link turned up missing.
2. Now, it only happens some times, not every time.
3. It is less likely to happen if the link appears somewhere other than at the end.
4. I think twitter is doing it deliberately to try and sabotage classic or traditional retweeting.
"Workarounds" include:
5. using Tweetdeck or other application rather than twitter.com as your interface
6. using SocialOomph.com as a place to add tweets
7. using the "classic retweet" button in Firefox or Chrome instead of copying and pasting
8. Adding a hashtag to the end, or otherwise moving the link from the end to the middle of the tweet
But one important thing I've noticed --> When Twitter started doing this, around a month ago, it happened on EVERY SINGLE TWEET. Now I'm finding that it usually does not happen.Ray, great article!
Some thoughts/questions:
1. What if I do a traditional retweet but remove the original message to be able to type at least 140-length_of_username_of_original_tweeter characters in my reply.
A. Is this not best practice to remove the original message when retweeting?
B. Will it then show up correctly when looking at the "conversation"?
2. Is there any web or #Android #twitter client that can bundle retweets when doing a hash tag search (or following one which is possible in #tweetdeck)? I know it's possible in my normal twitter feed but when having a search (in a column in Tweetdeck) it's really annoying getting 50 retweets on a popular tweet. If it instead said: "Original msg (50 retweets)" I would be happy! :) Then of course I would want it to jump to the top of the list everytime someone retweets.- jean harringtonOctober 21, 2011 at 10:40 PM
I've stopped using Classic RT in firefox, except for @davewiner.The Classic RT always seems to work for him, with links coming out in blue.The links for all others, come out in black and need a new tab to make them active.
This is important to me b/c I type with only the left hand and read slowly.I have sent an email to jon pierce and commented on twitter about @davewiner.I can't use tweetdeck b/c it moves too fast and the constant chirping drives me insane.
I didn't know that there was a problem with the manual RT until I read this.I could use the original article to retweet, but doesn't seem fair to the person who gave it to me, without whom I would never come upon the article.
Thanks! Great article Ray. I always thought that Twitter's retweet process was silly, but thanks for explaining to me why they did it, and even more importantly, a better way to do it. The traditional retweet is definitely a better way to attach your name and the original tweeters name to the Retweet. Definitely some good advice and something I can use to avoid having to hire a social media company. Thanks!
ReplyDelete- AnonymousNovember 23, 2011 at 9:51 PM
Hi Ray,
I just found this article after some confusion over where my retweet with the new button went and not finding any good answers in Twitter help (which doesn't seem to be updated for interface changes). I want to thank you both for the very clear explanation and the link to the Classic Twitter RT button for Firefox. I just installed/restarted and am excited to see it there...and planning to use it. Thank you thank you and happy thanksgiving@ - AnonymousDecember 12, 2011 at 1:30 AM
Thanks - I use stocktwits and their RT just adds RT to the front and you add your comments and edit as needed so did not know twitter had changed - so would never use them as we always comment on a RT.
What bother me and I have no idea about is what used to be named mentions is no your user name and some RTs have a reply button and some do not - If they have the users large avatar the reply function is there but some do not show the big avatar so no replay So I have to do it my self. What in the world is that all about? I send a thanks to all who RT so this is a waste of time. Don;t the designers use twitter? If they did they would not wreck it like this. Also for D messages they do not sort them by date anymore and that is really awful. How to find a person you hardly know who send a message two weeks ago? Just stupid. When you hid New Message there is no D so you can't be sure it is a D message or not. Well I suppose it is not such a hard system to make so if they hut it too much someone else will make a better system.
Ha - I can';t comment here using my twitter login - or Google+ - guess ti an old system - anyway thanks
Richard Damn, that's a bummer. While I definitely enjoy the new Twitter layout, this lack of classic RT hurts! I mentioned you in one of my own blog posts (http://bighappymedia.com/big-happy-tweeting-tips-lesson-1/) and hate to say I'm hesitant to keep it up as I don't really want to supply false info for those that have updated. I guess I'll leave it for the time being, no complaints yet!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your advice, Ray. I've been using both types of RTs and some MTs. I use Twitter for iPad so to get around the auto Retweet, I have used the Quote button, which often makes for a weird Tweet. However, it's my only option as copy-and-paste is somehow disabled. I would like to send this blog as an FYI RT to some of my followers who are in love with the "new" Retweet button, but I guess that would be rude.
ReplyDelete- AnonymousFebruary 20, 2012 at 8:07 AM
Just so you know, you can do the so called 'classic' retweet in Twitter for Mac...
And frankly I don't see what's wrong with the default retweet. Legacy is boring. Hi Ray, Twitter expert? I wonder if you have any ideas about the twitter embedded on our blog http://antonfestival.blogspot.com/. The twitter feed is a list because it has to be but when I hit Join the Conversation, it leads to a link that doesn't exist. Any thoughts on who could help. Been googling all over and can't find any help. Thx! ANF
ReplyDeleteThis article came up just when I was reaching the limits of my frustration with one aspect of retweeting the "old fashioned way: whenever I copied the tweet and then paste it so I can retweet it, the URL in the original tweet goes missing. It's like Twitter won't allow me to copy the URL portion of the message.
Any idea why this is or any easy and simple way of resolving it? I hope I didn't miss this information in your article...Okay Ray, thanks for that! I didn't get any notification that you'd answered here and accidentally found your response, strange. Anyway, will work on the link. I think I need a list to include other people's tweets in the feed, no? Not sure you want to get involved w/this mess as I have lists following lists that follow the originals lists in an endless loop? At any rate, the code I have doesn't want me to put in a link? though I'll keep working on how to do that. It seems to want something like this: }).render().setList('antonfestival', 'antonfestivity').start(); Thanks again :)
ReplyDeleteI think other apps do a way better of RT implementation than Twitter does. I'm long over the change of the RT, to the point I actually quite like it. Adding your comment isn't always needed. Sometimes things are just awesome on their own and don't need commentary from the peanut gallery to be shared and enjoyed.
I think the thing that is fundamentally broken about the RT is how they are kept track of. The fact they essentially created 2 tiers of RTs, then only keep track of the "official" method is annoying. If I tweet something that is popular and shared a bunch, I don't want to have to sift though my replies and check who officially RT'd my stuff.- AnonymousFebruary 18, 2013 at 9:51 PM
So yeah, um, seems like a whole lot of your case for doing a manual RTs is about bringing attention to yourself instead of honoring the tweet/author you feel compelled to retweet in the first place. "They might not realize that I made the amazing decision to retweet them." "I can't edit their tweet." "THEIR picture will appear next to their tweet instead of MINE."
I mean really? If you aren't adding a useful comment (and no I don't think "LOLZ" counts) the manual RT is pretty weak, in my opinion.
A novel way to get more attention is to be the original writer of retweet-worthy things.
Tofu Dan Yes, Anonymous Tofu Dan, you have a different view of things.
Personally I'm not on twitter to 'honor' the brilliant authors of "retweet-worthy things", nor am I here to write "retweet-worthy things", I'm here to learn and share and make friends.
If I retweet someone, and they don't even know that I did, or if they retweet something of mine and I don't know that they did, that's not going to build our relationship one iota. And if neither they nor I even show up in a keyword search, that's not going to help us find each other.
If you want to be invisible, what's the purpose of going on twitter at all?
And if you just want to write brilliant original things & be retweeted by legions of fans, well -- you're exactly the kind of person I would never follow.- AnonymousFebruary 19, 2013 at 12:09 AM
So you don't follow anyone based on the content they tweet? There are people doing some pretty neat things with 140 characters. Do you intentionally avoid people who write original things and have developed a fan base?
And if you do come across a very insightful or funny tweet that you think deserves sharing, is getting your picture next to it instead of the person who wrote it really a priority?
My colleagues on Twitter are mostly writers and comedians. If Michael Ian Black tweets a joke, it's something he wrote. If I think it's stellar, I want his picture next to it when I share it. Is that strange of me?
Tofu Dan - AnonymousFebruary 19, 2013 at 6:13 PM
Wait, did you just turn into my wife?
I take it you don't recognize absurd passive aggression as an "unfair tactic".
Want to share an Ed Schultz tweet, but don't have anything to add? What's wrong with a click of the retweet button, even if (gasp) YOUR picture isn't next to HIS thought?
You're a good looking guy, but a few other people's AVIs on your timelines might really spruce up the place.
@VaguelyFunnyDan Dear Ray Beckerman
Like you, I'm on Twitter 'to learn and share and make friends.' That's exactly why I prefer the built-in retweet function to the classic method of retweeting. When you write that 'If [you] retweet someone, and they don't even know that [you] did, or if they retweet something of [yours] and [you] don't know that they did, that's not going to build [your] relationship [with them] one iota', you are correct - but that is a reason for using the built-in retweet function and avoiding the classic method. If you retweet someone using the retweet button, that person will be automatically notified that you have retweeted their tweet. If you do it by typing 'RT', that person will instead be notified that you have 'mentioned' them.
This is explained in the blog post linked to via my name.
Best wishes
DanielRepliesThanks for your comment, Daniel. I've read your blog post but disagree with your conclusions.
You've given it a lot of thought, perhaps too much thought.
The conversational thread is preserved with classic retweets, and destroyed by twitter retweets.
Your blog post's suggestion -- that people should use both -- seems illogical to me, and seems to admit the point that I'm making.
I'm not sure you understood my blog post as I intended it. I didn't suggest that people use both the classic and the new method but that if they use the classic method, they should ideally do so after clicking 'Reply', rather than in an entirely new tweet, since this preserves at least some connection between the retweet and the original.
The conversational thread - in the sense of, a string of tweets each of which responds to the one before it, which reappears when you click 'View conversation' - is only preserved in the classic retweet method if you do the classic retweet after clicking the 'Reply' button. If you use the classic method without 'Reply', this is lost because Twitter has no way of knowing that your 'retweet' has any relationship at all to the tweet you are retweeting. The screenshots on my blog posting show this quite clearly. If you want to understand why this happens, you need to access Twitter via the Twitter API and have a look at the metadata that accompanies the normally visible portion of each tweet.
My post also shows that your arguments 5 and 6 against the new retweet method ('if someone retweets you, it is difficult for you to learn that they did' and 'if you retweet people, they will never learn that you did') no longer apply (I assume that they were correct at the time when you posted them). As the screenshots on my blog post show, retweeting a tweet using the new method will lead to the original tweeter's being notified of it as a retweet (i.e. with the words 'X retweeted you!' and 'Your Tweet got retweeted!'), while retweeting a tweet using the classic method will lead to the original tweeter's being notified only that he/she has been 'mentioned'.In deference to Daniel Allington's suggestion that my original post is out of date, I reviewed it this morning, and updated it. He's right that there were a couple of things that needed updating. E.g., tweetmeme is no longer in existence, so I removed the reference to it, and the way of finding twitter-fake-retweets has changed, but is similar in concept... you have to go look for them.
But the principles remain the same. With twitter-fake-retweets you are more invisible and less part of a conversation, than when using traditional or classic retweets; if you don't care about visibility or conversation, and don't care about connecting and interacting with people who have similar interests, then it doesn't matter.Interesting article, but moving with the times and reducing work for oneself is part of progress, even if it does mean succumbing slightly to the ever-encroaching parasitism of capitalism. I read the article while nodding my head and then read some of the comments advocating the other side of the coin. It seems Twitter has its own official answer that satisfies both camps: https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169873-retweeting-another-person-s-tweet
And that's how I'm going to be doing it in future.Like you, I'm on Twitter 'to learn and share and make friends.' That's exactly why I prefer the built-in retweet function to the classic method of retweeting. When you write that 'If [you] retweet someone, peluang usaha kecil sampingan and they don't even know that [you] did, or if they retweet something of [yours] and [you] don't know that they did, that's not going to build [your] relationship [with them] one iota', you are correct - but that is a reason for using the built-in retweet function and avoiding the classic method. If you retweet someone using the retweet button, that person will be automatically notified that you have retweeted their tweet. If you do it by typing 'RT', that person will instead be notified that you have 'mentioned' them.


text:
Dr. Willie Wang is an anesthesiologist in Lexington, who manages patient pain levels before, during, and after surgical procedures.
We invite you to write a review about your experience with Dr. Wang.
Dr. Willie Wang graduated from University of Mississippi School of Medicine in 1989.
Dr. Wang has one office in Kentucky where he specializes in Anesthesiology.
Dr. Wang works with eight doctors including Dr. Ashraf Abou El Ezz and Dr. Mohammed Farooqui.
As an anesthesiologist in Lexington, KY, Dr. Wang ensures patients are free of pain before (pre-op), during, and after (post-op) a surgical procedure. By administering anesthesia, Dr. Wang ensures that patients do not feel the pain of a surgical procedure.
Please Note: The information displayed below is sourced from the 2014 Medicare Physician and Other Supplier National Provider Identifier (NPI) Aggregate Report. It's important to remember that the statistics below are not inclusive of all patients treated by Dr. Wang, but only those who participate in Medicare.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Win a Simplicitea™ infuser
To celebrate the launch of its new Simplicitea™ infuser, the independent and award-winning tea company, We Are Tea, has five to give away. Not only that, but each lucky winner will also receive a caddy of its refreshing and reviving Moroccan mint tea.
A must-have accessory for loose leaf tea fans, the innovative Simplicitea™ infuser means you can brew a perfect cup of loose leaf tea each and every time. Watch the beautiful tea leaves dance as they release their wonderful flavours, before you enjoy a fuss-free cup of top-quality tea.
We Are Tea is a speciality tea company that sources whole-leaf teas from artisan producers across the world. They have a range of over 40 teas from classic English breakfast to rare white teas and light green teas.
The company is on a mission to break down the barriers to speciality tea and demystify the often over-complicated world of whole-leaf tea. From devising unique colour-coded categories for their teas to launching this clever Simplicitea™ infuser, they aim to make it easier than ever for people to explore whole-leaf teas from artisan producers across the world.
Find out more about the award-winning range at www.wearetea.com


text:
After Arbiter's Grounds (Revision 1833)
Proceed across the bridge to and up the staircase to the Mirror Chamber. As you approach the statue, five Twilight Creatures will drop from the sky. Just get between them and use the energy shield to reveal another Warp point.
EditPiecing the Mirror of Truth Back Together
Use the Spinner on the railing lining the statue, then spin inside the hole at the top to reveal the Mirror of Twilight. However, it's been busted to pieces. The sages will task you with locating these fragments to restore the mirror to its former self.
Warp to Hyrule Castle Town. As you pass through the gated entrance, the dedicated mailman will deliver a letter from Barnes which states he's received a new type of bomb in stock. Continue to Telma's bar and check out the map on the table to see Ashei's exact location in Snowpeak Mountain.
Warp to Zora's domain and exit out the south side and drop to the water below. Then proceed up the tunnel on the east side which leads to Snowpeak. At the end of the path you'll find Ashei who'll provide you with a sketch of the monster.
Warp to Kakariko Village and enter the graveyard to the west. Crawl through the hole at the end to find Prince Ralis. Show him the sketch; in exchange he'll gift to you the Coral Earring - due to its shape, it will be added to your fishing line allowing you to catch Reekfish.
EditTo Catch A Reekfish
Now it's time to catch a reekfish. They can be found in the waterfall basin at the base of Zora's domain near near the Mother-and-child rocks (the two pillars sticking out of the water on the West side.) Drop the lure into the water, bob it up and down, and then pull back once a fish swims for the hook. While it flops around on the ground, sniff it while in Wolf form to learn the Reekfish Scent.
Follow the scent back to Snowpeak and beyond. It will lead you up the otherwise impassable mountain. Don't worry too much about the White Wolfos - just dodge their attacks and push forward. If you follow the smell exactly, you'll wind up at a wall. Follow the right wall to find a ramp and resume the trail. As you near the top, you'll come across a ledge you can't quite climb. Dash into the wall to cause the snow to drop letting you continue on.
Just after the ledge that you dropped the snow from, you'll find ahowling stone on the Right side. Howl as shown (Up, Mid, Down, Mid, Down, Up, Middle Down. Play it again with the White Wolf to have the next Hidden Skill spot marked on your map in the Graveyard.
Just beyond is a Yeti. Speak with him as Human Link. He'll be so happy to see a human, he'll invite you to his house for dinner. Roll into the nearby tree to drop an icicle and ride like a snowboard to the end. Enjoy the ride, as it's pretty easy. Proceed through the door at the end to enter Snowpeak Ruins.
Top Wiki Contributors
Need assistance with editing this wiki? Check out these resources:


text:
Daniel Schechter always wanted to make movies and believes his desire to communicate is best served by his skills as a filmmaker. He calls "Supporting Characters" a significant departure from his previous films ("The Big Bad Swim" and "Goodbye Baby") because of its semi-autobiographical nature. While writing the script with friend and star Tarik Lowe, what started as a standard rom-com became more alive when they "kept cherry-picking moments directly from our personal lives." Schechter got his "top personal choice for every single role," including: Alex Karpovsky (HBO's "Girls"), Arielle Kebbel ("90210"), Kevin Corrigan ("The Departed"), Sophia Takal ("Green"), Melonie Diaz ("Be Kind Rewind"), Lena Dunham ("Tiny Furniture") & Tarik Lowe ("Blue Bloods").
What it's about: It's a comedy about two best friends, who are film editors in NYC, struggling with their careers, friendship and relationships with women.
Schechter, on his biggest challenge: "To produce a polished-looking, entertaining film, that could exist outside the festival circuit, for no money (WELL under 100k) in twelve shooting days. I'd like to think we accomplished that because I was fully prepared and incredibly fast (which I was), but it had so much more to do with a) surrounding myself with relentless, hardworking people and b) having an absurd amount of good luck go my way,..It was as though the Universe was telling us what this movie should be and even though I don't believe in anything really, I see it as ungrateful to not acknowledge how much good luck we all had."
On the films that inspired him: "'Modern Romance', because it's a deeply personal comedy about relationships, that happens to have a sub-plot about film editors, though it never devolves into 'a movie about making movies.' It's an Albert Brooks gem that holds up incredibly well. 'Tiny Furniture', because its just such a well-written, well-filmed, personal story with a fresh, original voice behind it all. Lena Dunham took the 'mumblecore' film movement to the next level, shedding the genre of all its flaws and enhancing its mainstream potential by making a film you could actually recommend to a non-filmmaker. Both films remind me that the more specific and honest you are, the more universal your story can be. They remind me to be brave, not cool, and that there's no fairer butt of a joke than yourself."
What's next? "My next project is an Untitled Elmore Leonard Project, based on his novel 'The Switch.' It stars Jennifer Aniston, Dennis Quaid, Yasiin Bey, John Hawkes and Ty Burrell, so far. Its about a kidnapping, but that's all I really want to say about the story. There are some terrible plot descriptions floating around the internet. None are accurate and few make the movie sound as incredible as its going to be. Its a dream project for me in every way."
Indiewire invited Tribeca Film Festival directors to tell us about their films, including what inspired them, the challenges they faced and what they're doing next. We'll be publishing their responses leading up to the 2012 festival.
Keep checking HERE every day up to the launch for the latest profiles.
Below find the trailer and two additional clips:


text: Where the Next Nexus Phone Is Coming FromBrent Rose8/15/11 11:40amFiled to: AndroidGoogleneXusMotorolaMobileCellphonesPurchaseMobilityGoogle TVTop541EditPromoteShare to KinjaToggle Conversation toolsGo to permalink After Google bought Motorola Mobility this morning, Google naturally had a conference call with their investors. We listened in and got a little rare insight into how the Nexus program works. When your kid asks you, "Mommy, where do Nexuses come from?" now you'll have an answer. Advertisement Advertisement The Nexus program is what Google uses to raise the bar for hardware manufacturers. It's gotta run the latest and greatest version of Android, and it's gotta run it well. Every year around Christmas time, Google picks a hardware manufacturer to make the next Nexus phone. They then have about nine months to build it. Interesting. We knew that Google works closely with whomever is building their next Nexus, but it sounds like Google is calling the shots even more than we thought. It would appear that they say what they need, and then manufacturers climb over each other and bid to build the thing.You might be wondering if Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility will give Motorola a leg up. Google says no, they will have to bid to build it just like everyone else. Hooray for competition!On the call there was also a lot of mention of in-home devices, which was a surprise since the purchase was for Motorola Mobility (Moto's mobile devision), specifically. Motorola's CEO Sanjay Jha said, "There is a great convergence between the mobile world and the content that enters the home through the set top boxes." Could this mean Motorola will play a key role in the evolution of Google TV? Time will tell. Sponsored You might wonder why Google just blew $12.5 bil on Motorola if they aren't going to be the next Nexus factory. The answer lies not only in the 17,000+ patents Motorola already owns, but also in the thousands more that Moto has "in-process." Google wouldn't say exactly how they'll leverage those against the many lawsuits that have been leveled against them, but they did say that they feel this acquisition will better protect them.So, will the next next Nexus be made by Moto? Well, the last rumors still point to Samsung, which would make two in a row for the big S, following last year's Nexus S, but you know how these rumors go, and there may yet be a Moto surprise for us all. You can keep up with Brent Rose, the author of this post, on Google+ or Twitter.Reply54 repliesLeave a reply


text:
The Telfair offers a broad selection of studio art classes suitable for a variety of age groups and skill levels. All classes are taught by knowledgeable and personable instructors with a deep comprehension of their media.
For more information or to register, please click below or call 912.790.8823.
Youth Classes
Telfair's youth classes are the perfect way to introduce your children to the museum setting while providing a fun and educational outlet for exploring and creating new types of art. Every youth class demonstrates skills that exhibiting Telfair artists used in their artwork, a visual and hands-on approach to learning new media. These classes ignite your child's imagination and creativity, while reinforcing the foundational skills necessary for artistic development.
Adult Studio Classes
Telfair's adult classes are tailored to reinforce museum exhibition themes and/or concepts. Filling a niche in the community, studio classes offer a nurturing creative environment and provide a wonderful opportunity to advance your artistic talents.


text:
According to a report published by the Icelandic Tourist Board, the number of foreign travelers visiting Iceland so far in 2012 has increased by 19.1 percent.
The report shows that 618,901 foreign travelers have visited Iceland so far in 2012, which represents 99,000 more tourists than in the same period last year.
In November, a total of 36,950 overseas tourists came to Iceland, 60 percent more than in November 2011. The number of visitors in the month of November has risen from 12,400 in 2002 to nearly three times that number this year.
Some of the main tourist attractions in the country include Europe's biggest waterfalls and largest desert, as well as volcanoes, glaciers, mudpots, thermal pools and the northern lights or aurora borealis. Experts say the best time to see the lights is during the winter months.
British tourists are right at that e top of the list, representing 27.7 percent of the total, followed by Americans with 17.4% and Norwegians 8.3%.
The total number of arrivals was down after the ash-cloud chaos caused by the erupting Eyjafjallajökull volcano in 2010. Around that time some 100,000 European flights were canceled and millions of passengers were left stranded.


text:
When Saginaw Bay Underwriters was founded, the industrial revolution was just underway, horses were still the main form of transportation and electric lights hadn't yet been invented.
We're still here today. Our longevity is a testament to the quality of our service, the dedication of our people, and our ability to think ahead and stay ahead of issues that affect our customers.
Over a century and a half of service. The region's most complete portfolio of carriers and services. An innovative, customer-focused approach that matches your needs with the best products available to meet them. What makes Saginaw Bay Underwriters the best choice for your personal, business or benefits insurance? The answer is CLEAR.
Put us to work for you.


text:
Hallo people at Max forum.
I´m trying to understand this giant program, and I trying to get some motivation for getting further in the LONG leaning curve.
The motivation will be just to get the ag.granular.suite up and running.
Have seen the video lots of times, but where the movie starts im already lost.
Is there a question here…?
The question here is-
How do you get them tools inside max.
I can only get one tool in pair patch.
So I can try it out..
The download for the suite is here:
Note that it's OS X only.
Other than that I can't really understand what you're asking.
It is probably my lack of knowledge in msp.
But in the video when he starts it up it look like this _
But when I start the ag granular it look like this-
As you can se there is something missing.
Thanks for taking your time.
Jakob from denmark
I don't know the patch you're working on but according to your screen-shots it seems like you need to toggle your patch in presentation mode.
Don't give up with Max but take some time to learn it. Watch all the videos on this site, read the tutorials or better read these books : one from Giri and the other from Manzo.
Hope this helps.
didn't try it for now, but it seems you need the FTM library from the IRCAM, as well as a Jamoma one, which i don't know. What does your Max window say ? if it's full of "can't find…" lines you probably don't have installed those libraries. It could explain the lack of things.
After trying, and opening the same patch as yours, i can confirm that your problem is that your miss the Jamoma, at least, and Ftm libraries.
Install IRCAM Ftm from http://ftm.ircam.fr/index.php/Download
Then, find the Jamoma at http://www.jamoma.org/download.html
Forums > MaxMSP