It would really benefit Twitter if they could actually include the information under the posts that they intended to include in the above sketch, i.e. the source of the re-tweet.
On the other hand, this method of re-tweets landing in your feed with NO attribution certainly leaves the door wide open for a business plan which includes sponsor’s messages (like perhaps the West Elm tweet alerting us to a floor sample sale) coming directly to you WITHOUT it really having been re-tweeted; how would you know otherwise.
Ryan Tate’s article said these retweets would be clearly labeled and would allow you to turn them off. That is not how it was implemented in this case, as Justine pointed out.
Tate also said Justine didn’t understand the reblog aspect of Tumblr, which is incorrect. She said she didn’t want to have her comments edited or removed. Ask anyone on Tumblr if they appreciate having their comments manipulated in a reblog.
Sounds to me that Ryan Tate, not Justine, doesn’t understand Tumblr, doesn’t understand how to send an email, pick up a phone, or possess well developed reading comprehension.
I get that Ryan’s job is to be snarky and he’s not a journalist, but misrepresenting the facts doesn’t really enhance the joke, it simply shows that he, not Justine, is the one who is confused.
I’ve since spoken to Ev, Biz, West Elm (WIlliams Sonoma-owned), and the gentlemen I called bad names. Nice folks all around caught up in an apparent “glitch” that was NOT a first run at the new Re-Tweet method at Twitter as was suggested by some media outlets. The “glitch” gave one the impression that ads and personal promotion were being pushed to your feed. With no attribution (contrary to the sketched Re-Tweet plan above) it certianly would be possible, as you would have no way of knowing who RT’d it, if anyone at all.
I’m glad to hear from Ev and Biz, that though that appearance was given by the “glitch”, there are no plans to implement anything like that.
