It's amusing noting how most of the big tech blogs (which get a lot of traffic from Twitter), are deferential in their reviews, merely making passing reference to the intense dislike and confusion. Read Mashable, Techcrunch, and other big dogs, and it's all sort of "well, some like it, some don't.. la di da." Mashable refers to the feature as "semi-controversial." But go almost anywhere else, especially on Twitter, and the "semi" quickly becomes contempt, and the bad publicity and user antagonism is palpable.
Sure, social network users often grouse about tweaks and changes, but this one needlessly disrupts or convolutes one of the most fundamental behaviors. I already have a growing list of reasons to dislike it, and will be detailing them later today. In the meantime, her here some updates.
"We’re working on a few problems related to the ongoing rollout. These should be resolved quickly and it will be back on for those who had the Retweet feature previously. And we’ll then continue the incremental rollout of this feature to everyone."
The new "re-tweet" feature is both less useful and more confusing than the ad-hoc system that preceded it. But that's OK, because it bolsters rich celebrities and dot-com millionaires.
This article is an example of the deferential puffery the big tech blogs engage in, but it's interesting for Scoble's comments trying to explain other dimension and ways of thinking about RT. Users who don't know Friendfeed may not follow it. But it also has some good general comments, like this one:
I would say it destroys the flexibility that RT has without gaining anything in return (except now there’s the Retweet sidebar area – but this doesn’t really add much information – can’t be search the way Robert describes w/ FF [below]) All in all, HUGE disruption for LITTLE or NOTHING gained. #FAIL