found via 9to5mac.com

I personally have little to no qualms with RT’ing, I also RT tweets in a very “traditional” manner. But, I want to try and understand a little of Alex’s piece, and also look at the wider picture for RT’s on Twitter.com.

RT’ing (short form for Retweets) have been part and  parcel of information sharing across the Twitter network for some time now, and helps to give credit to the original user who send the 140 character tweet out.

Firstly, I can certainly understand Alex’s concerns about the “undefined, closed loop” that RT’s can cause. It’s not helpful to have content being passed back to you via adding your @username to the RT, it piles up in your “Replies” section of your Twitter account, and can cause you to miss out on other @replies.

But, in my personal opinion I think that is about as much as I can agree with Alex on. His suggestion in the NextWeb article was that we “remove the RT @user” part of the tweet and simply just put the “link and URL” in the tweet.

Now, I am actually a strong advocate of passing on and giving credit. You can see I RT content a LOT, I get far more fulfilment out of giving other’s exposure then I do writing a “140 character message”. It’s the virality and exposure which can help boost someone’s blog post or opinion onto another level.

Another great thing about RT’ing with username is that users can click through to the original user, and discover more about them. By just adding the “title” and URL it doesn’t give any context as to why I should click on it.

But, if I see “RT @scobleizer” or “RT @ScottGould” I’m interested in clicking the link or reading the tweet.

It’s the one thing I think Bit.ly and other URL shorteners need to develop, a close tie in with the original tweet or link. For instance, if I wish to shorten the tweet, but don’t want to use TweetLonger I will link directly to the original tweet.

Now, when I hit “Share on Twitter” via my Safari web browser link to Bit.ly, I want Bit.ly to be aware of the location I just shared from, and then build in some credit for the original tweeter (would be a real time saver, and benefits all parties!).

You may have assumed I was finished at that point of the post. But, the reason I titled this post “Are RT’s about to lose their relevancy” is that I am wondering how the future of RT’ing via the new “RT look and feel” will really play out.

It was really the moment I had seen the screenshot of the new RT look that I began to wonder just how much people will feel “credited” for their opinion or link.

Perhaps Alex had indeed had a valid point, but not in the context he wrote it on!

When I skim read tweets first thing in the morning, or sometime during the day I look for key words which are relevant to my interests. I also look for RT’s ahead of other 140 character messages.

There has been plenty of debate about how Twitter.com is trying to bring back audiences to the web version of Twitter, and I have to say with the new look of this RT’ing I can’t see why anyone would bother.

There’s no easy way to notice that it was a RT, and just looks sloppy and down right cheeky on Twitter’s part that they chose to no longer allow RT @user. I certainly think the moment this feature is switched on for everyone, we will lose a bunch of “RT” love, and instead maybe we will all just end up heeding Alex’s words.

I personally really hope we don’t!

However, there is still a big issue that is underlying in this whole revolutionary period for Twitter.com.

People are actually actively adding themselves back onto their created Twitter lists. Some great example of this include Techcrunch holding 14 of the 30 places on the /technews list (created by @techcrunch) for Techcrunch content.

The reason this overfilling of Techcrunch content is not necessary is that @techcrunch already has a /team list with all the Techcrunch writers on there.

I cannot be the one to impose “rules” on Twitter list making (obviously ), and there are no set guidelines made by Twitter. But it just seems a little unorthodox to be including your own content into Twitter lists (especially as the user is likely already following you!)

Another thing that irks me about Twitter users including their own content in lists, is that they all have strong influence online. It’s almost a matter of whether they believe this investment into Twitter lists is actually going to pay off from them, because right now I can’t see why they should be worrying.

Maybe it’s an important step to help cover their bases should users begin to follow lists ahead of profiles. I don’t see why anyone would want to or need to go down that route, but I suppose it may be a possibility.

That then opens the discussion of “a profile’s influence on Twitter” against a “lists influence”.

Will this mean that only a select few Twitter users such as Robert Scoble, Gary Vaynerchuk, New York Times and Mashable will dictate all the attention because of their influence and people’s trust in their filtering of content?

On the other hand, will the attention to these powerful brands filter through to the lesser known people on Twitter who will gain additional followers from being included on a list?

Because, no matter how hard I try to really go along with the idea of Twitter lists being important, I just think it may end up being a big “ego-filled” list of “nobodies” with a range of decent content, but over the top opinions of themselves for being included on Scoble’s “/techpundits” list.

We really need to go back to basics, strip down beyond the “lists” and realise we all have followings to tend to. Each one of those followers will not care whether you have been included on @techcrunch’s /facebook list!

In the post, I mentioned how I believed that Google News should be replaced by the real-time of Twitter Search because the relevancy and immediacy of news reporting via Twitter was much more effective then Google’s auto-generated hyperlinked news front page.

We demand on real, in the action discussion from people on the scene  of a breaking news story rather then a 30 min delayed 1000 word writeup on CNN about what happened.

Some of you would argue that Twitter’s actually not quite “real-time” enough these days, and that Facebook owned Friendfeed.com delivers more updated information in literal realtime discussion threads.

Some of you even argue that Wikipedia pages offer realtime updates of events, but often get held up in editing limbo whilst people agree to disagree on exactly which order things occurred, and who was present.

But realistically, we all know that Twitter has the mainstream’s attention. News agencies such as NYTimes and CNN operate regularly updated news feeds which are copiously RT’ed (a form of viral word of mouth on Twitter). The first live pictures from the Hudson plane crash come directly from Twitter.

So why is that Google sits on prime real estate with Google News, and yet still believes it’s product beats Twitter’s hands down. Can’t Marissa Mayer of Google see that perhaps a way to get Wall Street Journal old media types off your case is to implement Twitter into Google News archives?!

I consider Google News very much a fish out of water with no chance of returning back to the sea. But, will Google notice this gaping issue before it’s too late?

Image Source of Twitter Logo: http://www.depts.ttu.edu/hs/careers/images/Twitter-Logo.png

Samuel made some interesting points about how the “over-complicated all-in-one approach can only lead to confusion” and how maybe Google would “be better off devoting their time to more useful projects”.

Now, the ultimate question is was Samuel right. Are we as technology evangelists and geeks alike obsessing over a product which doesn’t deserve attention.

Or has Samuel tripped up on his assumptions that many who are using Google Wave simply don’t understand why they are using it!

The big “W-H-Y” of the argument is incredibly easy to answer from my perspective. We use our social networks such as Twitter, Facebook and Myspace on a very passive basis to communicate on a one to one basis.

We then use email systems such as Google Mail and Hotmail to communicate on a group level, now which part of “messed up, full of crap” email threads can you relate to?

What Google Wave has enabled us all to now grasp is meaning, and understanding of public and private conversations. No longer do we have to be stuck with email threads which don’t need our attention, Google Wave solves that.

Samuel’s article has generated a ton of insightful commentary from the Tomorrow’s Web community, one comment from Dave Nattriss rang true to my overall opinion of Samuel’s piece:

Sorry Samuel but if Wave is lost on you, you really shouldn’t be judging and condemning it. Sounds like you got yourself an invite for all the wrong reasons.

But how right do you think Samuel was in throwing this new innovative concept out to the technology deadpool? Was I wrong to assume he was wrong?

Love to hear all your thoughts on his piece!

These adverts are displayed on screen before the user is allowed access to the actual website content they came for.

Interstitial advertisements are often used on news based websites are controlled on a “pay per display” system, instead of a “pay per click” system such as Google Adwords.

However, I am intrigued as to why this form of advertising is still used. It’s the classic interruption advertising that we have actively avoided in the last few years.

The common “skip-over” mechanism in interstitial advertising such as “Continue to the Site” for me is actually a satisfying experience of denying that ad any more screen time, yet there are some that don’t allow that redirection option.

The idea of denying a visitor the option to opt out of these advertisements is playing a key role in advertisers willingness to use “interstitial advertisements”.

TV Advertisers have the same issue with DVR recorded content. Suggestions from BBC America’s Garth Ancier in 2008 were that 98% of DVR viewers who watched BBC content skipped the advertisements.

His own solution for this problem was to encourage advertisers into using online sites such as NBC Universal’s Hulu.com which allows “non-skippable ads”.  This shows a strained advertising industry looking for new ways to interrupt us, a new way to deny us ability to skip advertisements on TV.

But as more then 448.6K people (according to Quantcast.com) visit sites such as Inquirer.net which use interstitial advertisements, can you blame the advertisers for getting a little disillusioned into thinking this is what the consumer wants.

In part, I believe we should be more involved with actively contributing feedback to these advertisers on what we want from companies. This could be related companies sponsoring features and columns of websites (a great example is Clickz.com) or companies offering prizes in return for a RT or #tag reply on Twitter.com.

We are entering a wide open space when it comes to direct advertising via Twitter, a space in which the advertisers works hand in hand with consumers to tailor product promotions to their needs.

A way in which advertisers will deliver short 140 character messages, but with a direct personable approach rather then a forced “Hey, look here!” advertisement you cannot avoid!

But, overall should we assume advertisers will be inclined to be less aversive of new technologies and social networking sites to help promote their content.

I think what advertisers need to get right first is the idea of “complimentary advertising” rather then “interruption advertising”. I am actively going to avoid those advertisers promotion which are basically like “putting lipstick on a pig”, it’s still a pig and it still annoys the heck outta me!

The panel was itself was moderated by Sam Whitmore from MediaSurvey, and hosted by Waggener Edstrom.

A post today from SiliconValleyWatcher.com’s Tom Foremski who attended the Embargo 2010 event discussed how Tom and the panel were slightly dismayed that Michael Arrington didn’t show up to the event.

I found it rather “awe-inspiring” that Tom went onto talk in an old media type style in relation to how embargoes should be dealt with.

So, before I go ahead with the post, let’s quickly sum up Michael Arrington’s opinion on the matter.  ”Break every embargo”, three magic words written by Arrington himself in an article at Techcrunch.com in December 2008.

Now, I am not here to defend Arrington’s ethos on blogging and news journalism. I don’t think this guy is any type of visionary (just someone with a great PR mind!). In fact, to show you some public opinion on Michael Arrington’s style of journalism, look no further then Kara Swisher of AllThingsD.com:

But, I am conscious not to berate Arrington, because he has worked so hard to get to the stage he is at. I fully credit and congratulate him on all his success.

Anyway, back to this rather lame post by Tom Forenski . He speaks in his SiliconValleyWatcher.com article of how “publications won’t run the story because they don’t want to be seen as being late with the story.”

This is true of many of the big technology blogs such as Techcrunch, Mashable and ReadWriteWeb.com who will often release posts at the same time as each other, and will nearly always feature the headline “BREAKING:” or “EXCLUSIVE”.

However, let’s contradict Tom’s point immediately with references to both my personal experiences and Michael Arrington’s own PR experiences. The companies themselves break their own embargoes!

Rarely do these panels on “the future of news” and “What’s the next stage for dealing with broken embargoes” look a little closer to home, they never assume the company dishing out the news is guilty of making the mistake.

I’ve had many times where PR companies have pitched stories to me, I’ve written up a piece (spending an hour or so getting it right!), and then scheduled it for after the time it was embargoed until.

But what do they do, the company only goes and posts a blog post telling the world the embargoed news, and I’m then left stranded because I didn’t get the post out before them!

Companies should be held accountable for their own media ethics, there is no way anyone can have a serious discussion on journalists ethics when the companies haven’t got their own agenda straight.

Furthermore, I refuse to be told this and that by “old media types”. We sit and listen to their garbage about how to use Twitter properly, and why “blogs rock”. It’s such a joke, and a proactive waste of our time to assume these guys have much valuable stuff to contribute.

And what I cannot understand is how Tom Forenski can assume that using a press conference to deliver the news to everyone at once is a good idea is beyond me.

They would have to enforce a systematic ban on all cellphones, and internet enabled devices to prevent people tweeting or updating their Facebook pages on the news they just received.

It’s a question of morales rather then logical sense for these old media types. We are just here to discuss and digest information that is delivered to us, we shouldn’t be governed by regulation on when we should and shouldn’t post news stories anymore.

The media landscape is far too sporadic and malformed to allow that type of “accepted behaviour”.

One thing I am going to partly assume of the readership to this blog (who are mainly based in California) that you all have a lot of respect for Robert and his contribution to technology.

But how serious have you been about considering just what will happen after Robert retires. Is there an up and coming replacement who is ready to take his place, or will there only be room for one Robert Scoble?

Robert Scoble’s current reign at the top of technology punditry has stemmed largely from his affiliations to many web companies in Silicon Valley, and lucrative (non-financial) connections to some of the biggest media organisations in the Valley such as Techcrunch.com. He has built out a personal blogging empire through Scobleizer.com, and has regular discussions with peers on Friendfeed.com.

Out of the all the teenagers who are largely affiliated to technology, who can claim such a rapport with Michael Arrington of Techcrunch, or Pete Cashmore of Mashable.com. OK, one name perhaps comes to mind (you know who you are!), but does this not show that others who haven’t got this attention from big named media types are perhaps dealing with it in a more constructive manner.

Are we to believe that Robert Scoble would have made it as big as he did if he had started out today. The media landscape (blogs, podcasts and Youtube) has shown that we are now part of fragmented communities.

How many new “Robert Scoble’s” are you currently following ahead of everyone else. I would suspect not many.

I think personally teens who aspire to be Robert Scoble are kidding themselves. And, it’s not because they are any less talented or forward thinking then Robert, they just have to understand that people’s perception’s of individual brands are changing rapidly.

For example, those who invest their time into  Twitter.com, Facebook and other social networks such as Gary Vaynerchuk have built strong personal brands out of nowhere.

But do bear in mind that Twitter.com didn’t arrive on the scene until 2006 whereas Robert Scoble was making headlines on his departure from Microsoft, without the use of a big Twitter following!

A big factor we can also not afford to discount is how Robert has been part of the so many “once in a lifetime moments” such as the proliferation of the internet, the launch of Google.com, the first use of RSS by Netscape.

No-one can claim to be part of anything quite as monumental as that, and teenagers have got to understand that getting media attention now for saying “X about Twitter” doesn’t equate to a comment from Scoble on “X about Twitter” (he’s had far more life experience, and once in a lifetime experiences then teenagers of this generation will ever get!)

It’s not to say I have voted all teenagers out of contention to gain the success of Robert Scoble, I just feel that there is likely not going to be another Robert Scoble for a good few years, and there is likely only one teen based in Silicon Valley right now that will perhaps come close.

Both Stefanie and Brandon were among five Twitter users chosen (including Veronica Belmont, Heather Armstrong and John Dickerson), who all had a high level of clout within the Twittersphere (all over 1m followers)

I’ve already had the personal pleasure of interviewing Brandon Mendelson about his work for the #AMHF cause on Twitter, and have regular conversations with Stefanie Michaels via  Twitter DM’s, and @replies.

But, notably I’ve yet to do an interview with Stefanie for the blog (we must get that done sometime soon!).

Congrats to both of them for this feature at CNN. You guys both really deserve it for all the hard work you do

For more information on Stefanie’s work as @adventuregirl on Twitter visit:

http://adventuregirl.com/

And for more information on #AMHF (Brandon Mendelson’s website), visit:

http://amillionhighfives.com/

What started off as a mundane birthday actually turned into a very exciting, rich and fulfilling day (thanks in part to social media). I had literally logged onto Twitter, posted my update to announce I was 19 years old and within about thirty seconds or so received my first DM.

Now, this wasn’t any old “Happy Birthday” DM, this was a “Happy Birthday DM” with a difference. Sent by @ezrabutler, a contributor to 1938Media.com this message was written in Hebrew (see screenshot below!):

Shortly after this DM arrived, I receieved another message from Twitter (this time an @reply), from @LindaCarmica. She provided a link which I duly went to, and this is what I found:

I also received Facebook messages from Angelique Luff and Jamie Favereau (thanks guys!)

Thanks to EVERYONE who sent me birthday wishes, totally unexpected!

Update (7.45pm GMT): Additional thanks to @robday, @scottgould, @kavitashahi, @adventuregirl and @calebhays for sending my messages to wish me “Happy Birthday”

Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ginnerobot/3245408401/