Item — HN Reader

When I want to write something over multiple tweets, I use a simple syntax to make it clear that each individual tweet is meant to be read in context with the others: I simply suffix all tweets except the last one with ">" and prefix all tweets except the first one with "<".

Additionally, I make sure each tweet is a reply to its predecessor. Here's an example: https://twitter.com/epaga/status/510316379833393152

3 comments

Isn't it a bit silly in this day and age to use that kind of ad hoc hack in order to express a more complex point?

I mean I understand that's how twitter works and probably part of what made it successful, but it baffles me that it's seemingly becoming a "serious" way of communications. Politicians are expected to have a twitter account, serious news organisations often quote twits directly in the body of their articles etc...

I don't understand why so many people chose to de-facto standardize on such a poor medium for communication, especially since you have a billion alternatives without such limitations.

I don't think I would have understood that, since the tweets in the middle look like "< this >" which is used for a bunch of different purposes (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket#Uses_of_.22.3C.22_and_....).

It's not often I write long, connected replies, but I prefer the (1/4) method after writing the whole thing out in notepad or something.

Agreed; this seems like the most explicit way to do it. Of course it means you have to actually take the time to form the whole argument before firing the first tweet out there, but that's almost certainly a good thing.