1. Filtering- only the most retweetable messages propagate deeply.

2. Network Topology- at higher RT depth, the message accesses a more globally connected social network.

http://twitter.com/720media

By definition, Tweetbacks that are merely RT’s of previously posted content or links – as featured in the comment section of a blog are clearly Spam.

http://www.tourismkeys.ca/blog/2009/02/is-twitter-spamming-your-blog/

Tweetbacks inherently give those who retweet posts significant profile on blogs that feature tweetbacks.

This benefit of visibility for simply pressing a button and associating oneself with a successful blog is the sort viral positive feedback loop we can do without.

For the blogger, the RT’s get their blog more exposure, for the Retweeter the RT gets them exposure for their twitter brand. . . in the process blogs like yours get filled with useless links that do not contribute to the discussion and in fact are nothing more than spam.

It’s a lazy person’s way of a Twit pulling on the bloggers coattails.

What makes RT comments on a blog any different from Spam comments like – “Hey, nice post.”

I look forward to your response. The use of tweetbacks clearly has consequences for your statistical analysis and use of such tools clearly needs sober second thought.

After all, what’s to slow someone from following peeps who’s blogs feature tweetbacks and constantly RTing their content to get followers. Seems to me the reward of featuring a tweet on a blog post for a tweet isn’t desirable.

People must understand how oiwerful Twitter is.

Thanks for this info!

Regards,
André T

1. What makes retweets more likely to be retweeted? (beyond that first retweet)

2. Does it make sense to separate retweets that contain links vs those that don’t? I suspect sharing a link makes retweeting more likely BUT retweets of just ideas without links are also valuable in a different way- what makes them retweet-worthy?