I have to admit, I’m new to social media, especially Twitter, and I’m still learning the rules. But it appears to me that there are (as yet) few clear behavioral codes, perhaps because the medium is so young. For example, today one of my favorite visionaries on Twitter and a seasoned social networkers, @VenessaMiemis, tweeted the question:
sooo.. how many times should u RT someone w/o them acknowledging u before you just give up & unfollow? hmm
In a way that made me feel better, since if Venessa doesn’t know, perhaps I’m not as naive as I feared. She went on to say:
not being RT’d back or thanked made me feel ignored, and that made me sad.
![]()
My question is – should Venessa feel that way? And heaven forbid, was I one of the thoughtless people who inadvertently snubbed Venessa and made her sad?
There seems to be a schizophrenia about the role Twitter should be playing in the lives of people like Venessa and like me.
On the one hand, I think many people (myself and Venessa included) see Twitter as primarily a way of exchanging ideas, a way of of passing useful information amongst individuals with similar interests.
But many people also see Twitter as a way of building social relationships and virtually connecting with kindred spirits. And of course, may people hope Twitter can serve both an informational and a social role.
For someone trying to follow 50 or 100 active Twitter users, messages like ‘@BlahBlah – thx for the RT!’ appears as a waste of my limited bandwidth. So when I’m fortunate enough to have someone retweet one of my own posts, I’m always saddled with a decision. Should I be polite and thank them publicly for the RT? Or should I thank them privately (perhaps with a direct message) and thereby avoid giving existing and potential followers the impression that the signal-to-noise ratio of my tweet-stream is so low that I’m not worth following?
From the perspective of the person who was kind enough to RT me, a public thank you would seem much preferred, since it calls attention to them, and could help them build their list of followers. But at the same time, I also sometimes get the impression that ‘thank you’ retweets are a bit self-serving – calling attention to oneself by illustrating how many other people think you’ve got something important to say.
I even find myself second guessing myself earlier in the process, when considering whether to retweet content I find valuable. Are my followers likely to have already seen the information I’m about to RT? Does the information fit the interest profile I perceive my followers to have? My big fear is that RTs of information my followers have already seen will be worse for my ‘Twitter reputation’ than having said nothing at all. But on the other hand, when I see at RT by someone whose perspective I value, I’m more likely to read it, even if I passed over it the first time it showed up on my Twitter input stream.
In short, it is quite unclear to me (and apparently others) what the rules of right conduct are when engaging with others on Twitter, if such rules even exist.
What all this points out is just how primitive are the tools and filtering mechanisms we have at our disposal now for real-time social networks. I hope someday soon Twitter clients will be smart enough to filter out ‘thank you’ retweets unless I’m the sender or recipient, and to filter out RTs of stories or blog posts I’ve already read. If I knew everyone had access to these two seemingly simple features, I’d be much less reluctant to RT good content that my followers may have otherwise missed, and I’d be much more willing to be polite and thank people for RTs of my own posts, knowing that I wouldn’t be cluttering the tweet-stream of people who follow me with posts which are nothing more than noise to them.
How do others handle such conflicts? Are there codes of conduct that people have tried to formulate for how to be a good Twitter participant? How much does it depend on the size of your following and the type of reputation you’re trying to build? I know there are people (like Robert Scoble @Scobleizer) who maintain several Twitter feeds – one (or more) for pure content, and another for more personal stuff. That makes sense for someone like Scoble, who has more than 100K followers. But it doesn’t seem reasonable to expect people to follow more than one Twitter persona for a newbie and relative unknown person like me.
If I’ve offended you Venessa, or anyone else, I sincerely apologize. I’m the first to admit I’m still stumbling along trying to find my way through the complicated and quickly evolving world of social media.
Update: Venessa – congrats on your Ideas Project video. Very nice! Right now I’m asking – should I join the crowd and tweet a friendly ‘congrats!’ message to Venessa or just stay quiet?

8 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 17, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Tim Kastelle
Nice post Dean, and an interesting question that I’ve grappled with too. When I first started out, I thought that ‘thank you for the RT’ posts were a waste of time, but I’ve changed my mind. Now I think they are good to do for three reasons:
1. Showing appreciation!
2. When several people RT the same thing, listing them in one post is actually a good way to indicate to other people that they all have an interest in the topic, so it helps with community building.
3. Several of the twitter metrics measure @ replies, so you actually are helping out the people you thank on that metric too.
Of course, the real issue with Venessa is how many times can you RT her great content without looking like a stalker!
December 18, 2009 at 1:55 am
Dean Pomerleau
Tim,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I didn’t know about the @ replies metric, and I like the community building angle you mention.
When I have a few extra minutes, I too like to surf through the people that people like Vanessa thank, looking for interesting folks to follow. So ‘thank you’ posts definitely add value. I just wonder how scalable such a gratitude model is…
What happens when one’s popularity grows to have thousands of followers. Is it really practical to acknowledge every retweet, and still have time to seek out new and interesting content worth retweeting?
December 18, 2009 at 3:34 am
Tim Kastelle
The 1000s of followers question is a good one, and I’m not sure what the answer is (wouldn’t mind having the problem though!). I think there’s a point where you cross over from building a community to broadcasting. If you’re Chris Brogan that point is a much higher number than it is if this isn’t your central job, but there’s still an upper bound to how many people you can effectively interact with on a regular basis, I think…
For metrics, take a look at some of the ones at twitalyzer – I think that theirs are pretty good (and a couple include the @ mentions).
December 18, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Do Neurons Say Thank You? « Thoughtful Cog Blog
[...] Cog Blog Just another WordPress.com weblog « Social Media Etiquette Do Neurons Say Thank You? December 18, 2009 My hobby is analyzing real-time social media [...]
December 18, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Venessa Miemis
Dean,
You are too funny! I’m glad my tweets created a spark to write this post, but I have never felt snubbed by you! If anything, you have been an inspiration. The article I wrote, ‘Twitter’s Intelligent; Welcome to Web 3.0′ (http://emergentbydesign.com/2009/11/26/twitters-intelligent-welcome-to-web-3-0/) was partly inspired by you as I connected the dots. BTW, I cross-posted that article to http://www.socialmediatoday.com, and as of this writing, it’s been retweeted 239 times and viewed over 9,000 times. So a lot of people have had the chance to enjoy your thinking.
As far as the etiquette question here, I’m working on my own opinions on this over at my blog, but I’ll give a preview to my thoughts.
I’m also new-ish to Twitter, and went through the same early experience as most people. ‘This is stupid,’ ‘I don’t get it,’ ‘I could care less about the sandwich you’re eating.’
Then I started being more selective about who I follow, and the quality level of my experience shot up. (and is still rising).
I’m realizing that Twitter can be an amazing personal learning network, via the tweets others provide you, but also an interesting multiple community network, where you can ‘dip in’ to many many different conversations or topics at will.
That was actually the impetus for my disgruntled tweets… I was RTing a person I was interested in engaging with – I was giving them props for the quality of their thoughts/content by retweeting, and they wouldn’t even acknowledge me. Acceptable acknowledgements would be:
- a private message saying ‘thanks for RT!’
- a public message saying ‘thanks for RT!’
- retweeting one of my tweets
- talking to me
None of these happened, and I felt “snubbed,” as you said. I guess I’ve worked out the “input” system of Twitter now – I am very happy with the quality of tweets that come through my stream. Now I’ve been focusing on what I give back – the conversations I take part in, and connecting people that I think would benefit from knowing each other, and directly sending links to specific people/groups instead of just blasting tweets into the ether.
So now that I’ve become more focused on the relationship building aspect of Twitter, I’ve become a bit hyper-sensitive, which I realize is not fair at all, because not everyone is at the relationship stage yet. Or they’re just not interested in interacting with me, and that’s ok too.
December 19, 2009 at 1:13 am
Dean Pomerleau
Venessa,
Thanks for taking the time to engage. The behavior you describe does sound pretty rude. But I try not to take anything personally, especially when it comes to Twitter. I figure others may be as uncertain as I am about acceptably behavior. I found the paper you pointed to about retweeting behavior to be very informative, to show just how varied and chaotic the behavior of Twitter users really is: http://bit.ly/PCKTo
Also, depending on who it is you are trying to engage, they may be very busy, and have their hands full just trying to read all the interesting content out there. I know I can barely keep up with following 60 carefully chosen people. I don’t understand how people (like you!) who follow hundreds of people can do it. I find there just aren’t enough hours in the day, especially having another full-time job.
With better tools (collaborative filtering etc.) I think we could all do a better job keeping up, and being conscientious participants in the global dialog. Hopefully we won’t have to wait too long…
December 18, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Michael J
My two cents.
When I started about 3 months ago, I decided not to RT.My decision process was pretty similar to what Dean describes.
I changed my mind about a week ago. Turns out it’s pretty easy to go to the @ page, and reply to a RT with Thx for RT, pretty painless. For me the value of an RT is that it signals that someone else thinks interesting(2me) is interesting(2them). That’s a good start for finding where to focus.
To solve the question of a “cleaner twitter stream’ I set up two lists. A public of interest(2me) and a private interesting(2me).
here s how I’ve been using it so far:
I check the new followers pretty often. Usually I can make a snap judgment about who goes into the not-worth-it(2me)bin. If they pass that filter, I click onto their twitter stream.
If the twitter stream looks ok, I follow. If it looks like it might be worth some time to get in clearer focus they go onto my public “of interest(2me).
If a couple of their tweets get my attention enough to click on a link I put them on my private interesting(2me) list. It gives me clear levels of focus from low to high:
1.public twitter stream of followers.
2.public list “of interest(2me)
3.private list “interesting(2me)
Whenever I get a RT the person gets put on the of interest(2me) reflexively.
So far it seems to be working pretty well.
December 19, 2009 at 1:30 am
Dean Pomerleau
Michael J,
I really like your strategy of using lists to manage your tweet stream. I bet that’s how people who follow a lot of people do it. I’m going to try it myself. I like the idea of having a much ‘quieter’ private list that I can use to quickly catch up on what my favorite people have been saying.