Idea for threads Updating Folks with Tweets

[TK]

I'm just gonna throw out there that it REALLY seems these "tweeters" (or whatever the term is) are mainly out to get traffic. I mean, I was reading "You need to link to my twitter" whenever commenting on it. Huh? Don't get it.

You don't get it because you didn't read what I actually said. Again, paraphrasing like you did here, is the problem. What you've said is not what was actually said as you've left parts of it out. :doh:

Linking is not to get more traffic. I could care less about the number of followers I have. It's not a competition. Requesting links is so that everyone can see what is actually said instead of it constantly being turned into a game of "telephone".

[Jumbo]

Jumbo,

That was very well point. Twitter should be treated like any news source and cited, although IMO you don't have to link back to twitter if the users twitter handle is included. That seems a bit redundant to me. However, like wikipedia I put a lot of salt in anything I digest from twitter. It's not necessarily a 'vetted' source until there is significant corroboration through other means IMO.

I see the redundancy, but understand why it's the best form. And I'm more in the "get off my lawn" :pfft: frame in general about any of the social media sites (or members of such a site) having anything like an auxiliary station on ES attached to their activity on that other (social) site. But it's not going to go away and many folks are really into it.

All ES'ers are well served to simply remember if they're going to refer to info from a tweet, they better cut n paste it. TK's about ready to start banning for not doing so and I'll cover him.

We have one long time member who keeps one thread in particular, that was started on a news topic, updated with numerous Twitter quotes almost daily. He was cooperative in resisting doing it with a number of other threads, which if it were unchecked, given understandable projections on people and the internet, could easily involve into half the threads being half-full of people quoting tweets.

He does a great job of quoting the source and limiting the activity to that thread (mainly) and the situation has been fine.

Having one thread like we have now in the stadium, primarily devoted to "insider" tweets, beats having a herd of twits starting their own (which I would not allow, of course, to be perfectly clear).

But people need to at least quote the tweet they refer to and not parpaphrase or go by memory..

---------- Post added March-8th-2012 at 09:56 AM ----------

<edit>I was typing this before TK's post above was made, but I think we're on the same page>

[HailToTheRedskins14]

If we allowed politics in the stadium, I could make some good jokes on this matter. :pfft:

But one of the (of course) biggest issues is adults (theoretically) simply holding themselves accountable for their chosen behaviors.

If you're not into twitting, don't quote or refer to them or agonize over "what's going on" in the rumor mill.

If you choose to engage, quote your reference whenever possible (like the tweet), just like we always have said to do with any "source" you're using in a post to form or support a comment that isn't just your opinion.

Or just read and don't quote the info. Form what you read in your own words like an actual thought :pfft: on a position and then post your opinion on that thought, leaving referring to some source completely out.

This is not rocket surgery.

Maybe I'm missing something, I'm not the quickest guy in the world.

But are we supposed to post a link to a twitter account everytime that one single comment is referenced? What's the difference between saying "I heard on ESPN today that _________" compared to "Jsteelz said _________".

Just seems like an excuse to get more hits on a Twitter account to be honest.

[Jumbo]

Maybe I'm missing something, I'm not the quickest guy in the world.

But are we supposed to post a link to a twitter account everytime that one single comment is referenced? What's the difference between saying "I heard on ESPN today that _________" compared to "Jsteelz said _________".

Just seems like an excuse to get more hits on a Twitter account to be honest.

1. Your quickness is not our problem or concern. It's yours.

2. You're "just seems" is misplaced as you were just told by the people deciding the course of action none of this is about getting more hits. Read TK's post right above you if you missed it. I don't even like twitter, per se, and was never on it "socially" until a couple week ago, haven't logged on in days, and follow 5 and have 4 followers (who must be bored out of their minds as far as my involvement goes).

3. Your comparative example doesn't hold up in that we request ALL references be cited when possible. This is aimed at internet sources 9 out of 10 times. If you're going to quote a tweet you're reading, it's possible. If you hear soemthing on the radio or were walking by the TV, it's not but you can do your best, like stating the network/show/time/broadcaster etc.

[wsniper1]

I think twitter threads should have the original post updated as they add tweets to the thread. therefor you can still comment all you like, and the tweets are still easy to find.

instead of finding post 1453, 567, and 1789, oh and 320

[asoccerplayer99]

I have seen other forums (namely slickdeals) that have a type of "wiki" post at the front of every thread, so important information doesn't get buried in a multi-page thread, but it's also less of a burden for one person to keep an OP or thread title updated with important non-comment things that people may want to see. In the case of tweets and tweet threads here on ES, something of that nature seems to me like it would strike a good balance of quick access to the tweets, and still allow the normal conversation about them. I remember these forums getting updated not too too tooooo long ago, I wonder if a similar functionality is built in to the vBulletin software?

[tibbidoe]

Since any word spoken can easily be turned into a shiny new thread, I think it makes sense to have some information-only threads based on Twitter posts. Certain people are more useful for Redskins info, so this makes sense.

[ADF]

If you want just tweets, open a Twitter account.

This is a message forum.

This was my first thought as well. I have a twitter account just for Redskins news. I follow who I find to be reliable and I don't have to worry about people paraphrasing things.

[SnyderShrugged]

This was my first thought as well. I have a twitter account just for Redskins news. I follow who I find to be reliable and I don't have to worry about people paraphrasing things.

Thats my approach for the most part. I've never been too avid into tweets, unless it's some major real time current event or of course, skins rumors or breaking news. I mainly just keep two windows open in the backround at work and check each once in a while throughout the day. an ES window and a twitter window filtered by #redskins. Works just fine for me.

---------- Post added March-9th-2012 at 07:26 AM ----------

This was my first thought as well. I have a twitter account just for Redskins news. I follow who I find to be reliable and I don't have to worry about people paraphrasing things.

Thats my approach for the most part. I've never been too avid into tweets, unless it's some major real time current event or of course, skins rumors or breaking news. I mainly just keep two windows open in the backround at work and check each once in a while throughout the day. an ES window and a twitter window filtered by #redskins. Works just fine for me.

[DeadExField]

I wish a lot of these tweets weren't so cryptic and seemingly ego-driven

[TSO]

I think everyone agrees that it would be much more organized, convenient, and leave less to misinterpretation/omission/addition from those who are giving their opinions on tweets if the OP contained all tweets copied and pasted in unaltered form.

However, the con to that is obvious to everyone in that it burdens the thread starter in having to do all the work, which isn't fair.

So, in my mind, a simple solution would be if the OP in these type of threads were open to be edited by anyone. I'm not sure if that's even technically possible with the website code for a board like this, but that would make the most sense to me.

Obviously, a new rule would have to be made and strictly enforced that states that all designated "tweet threads" must ONLY HAVE tweets in the OP; must ALWAYS be edited with the proper timing (i.e newer tweets continually go on the bottom of OP); editor MUST ALWAYS pay attention to anyone else who may have already edited and updated the same tweet he/she is about to; and any violation of that would go against the spirit of the thread and be, therefore, punishable by the Mods.

So the OP would contain all the updated tweets in succession; wouldn't burden the thread starter to have to do all of the work him/herself; and still keep the wonderful format of a discussion board that is ES for everyone to opine as they wish.

[IrepDC]

If this idea was put into place, people would then feel the need to start another thread(s) to voice their opinion about every tweet. With the same effort it would take to do this, people could just sign up for Twitter. There are less than 10 sources that get posted in that thread. Type in those five or six names, hit follow, and you'll have your newstream right there.

[Jumbo]

To the best of my knowledge, we can't open an OP up for everyone to edit. Per new rules and enforcing them, speaking for myself, I already do too much unpaid work here, especially considering how willfully stupid posters are and how willfully they refuse to learn and follow the rules we already have.

My position, as I have often told other staff and have posted on the board, is that if you're the kind of <goofwad, often, in my opinion> poster who's going to volunteer to get all wound up over twits in twitland and bring it ES, then suffer.

I think the whole thing (getting all wound up over numerous 140-or-less character fart from anyone day after day, week after week) is relatively pointless and stupid anyway. Go to twitter and immerse yourself in it there. Or, do what so many are doing here and make you choice about how many million times you want to say the same **** repeatedly, invest whatever passes for your brain in interpretations, game-playing, ever-changing "tips", misrepresentations, distorted rephrasing, omission, and all the other forms of "talking twitter" and and insider, and misc twitter-figures etc etc etc for whatever value you seem to find out of the whole activity, and suffer. Like I do reading you guys doing it.

[Jumbo]

To the best of my knowledge, we can't open an OP up for everyone to edit. Per new rules and enforcing them, speaking for myself, I already do too much unpaid work here, especially considering how willfully stupid so many posters seem to be and how willfully they refuse to learn and follow the rules we already have.

My position, as I have often told other staff and have posted on the board, is that if you're the kind of <goofwad, often, in my opinion> poster who's going to volunteer to get all wound up over twits in twitland and bring it to ES, then suffer.

I think the whole thing (getting all wound up over numerous 140-or-less character farts from anyone, day after day, week after week) is relatively pointless and stupid anyway. Go to twitter and immerse yourself in it there. Or, do what so many are doing here and make your choice about how many million times you want to say the same **** repeatedly, invest whatever passes for your brain in interpretations, game-playing, ever-changing "tips", misrepresentations, distorted rephrasing, omission, and all the other forms of "talking twitter" and insiders, and other misc twitter-figures, etc etc etc, for whatever value you seem to find out of the whole activity, and suffer. Like I do reading you guys doing it.