3 ms·
I guess there's value in explicitly calling out to your followers that you're broadcasting your reply with the ".@" but I find it horrendously ugly, even in the
by alanfalcon 15y ago
I guess there's value in explicitly calling out to your followers that you're broadcasting your reply with the ".@" but I find it horrendously ugly, even in the Twitter world where tweets like @bob RT @Mary #FF @Ryan @Greg #ThePiManCometh t.co/Nf8QZ are commonplace and obviously ugly, I find them less so than .@ —My preferred way to broadcast a reply to all is either with a leading space (if that even works anymore) or to use as much English as possible (Well, @Bingo I think we have a #Nameo problem). But that could just be me being a terrible Twitter user (you'll see on my feed that I tend to prune my own tweets down to exactly 140 characters and try to avoid abbreviations, acronyms, etc., though I retweet many other tweets). I also rarely broadcast replies because I figure that nobody cares unless they already follow both of us in the conversation, and also because I have my website configured to display recent tweets that aren't @ replies, so I have better control over what's showing on my blog sidebar (without limiting my ability to @reply).
- mmahemoff 15y agoWell sometimes the leading . is useful to you're replying to something. An arguably better convention is simply to @ the person you're replying to at the end of the tweet. If it's a tweet worth broadcasting, it may as well read like an ordinary tweet.