please empty your brain below
|
So their incompetence about retweeting your feature without checking it properly is your fault, not theirs.
The thing is that there isn't much difference between marketing and sarcasm, I'd have just things alone instead of getting into a huff, bad PR.
| 10.08.16 - 7:34 a.m. | #
|
|
Agreed that in this case it would have been better for them to leave it alone. But your post was so well-written that any reputational harm it might have done to Royal Docks was minimal. A more virulent "anti" post (not unknown on Twitter) would have justified their action. So a decision to leave it alone would have required some subtle thinking.
Malcolm | 10.08.16 - 8:01 a.m. | #
|
|
This is just so brilliant! I'm going to have a celebratory glass of wine today.
GA Annie | 10.08.16 - 8:28 a.m. | #
|
|
Humourless t**ds know nothing do they?
B | 10.08.16 - 8:28 a.m. | #
|
|
As B says, Humourless .... would have had much more respect for them if they came back with something witty rather than throw a minor hissy fit.
PeteC | 10.08.16 - 8:33 a.m. | #
|
|
Your post was personal, but it didn't contain anything for them to be ashamed of. Blocking it is.
Greg S | 10.08.16 - 8:35 a.m. | #
|
|
Lets all block them and tell them why!
David | 10.08.16 - 8:51 a.m. | #
|
|
I don't do Twitter (that's why I never walk into lamposts [or other people]), and I don't have the foggiest idea how it works, but can't you all DO something to Royal Docks, like cause a Twitter 'storm' or something? I mean clearly being blocked from a Twitter Feed is seen to be VERY SERIOUS ......... BTW this IS sarcasm .....
Brian | 10.08.16 - 8:56 a.m. | #
|
Oh dear - a lesson from Royal Docks on how not to "do" Twitter as an organisation when you put your foot in it. Plenty of examples of organisations getting things "wrong" but turning it round so they appear more "human" and "fun" than sulking like a cry baby 5 year old in the school playground.
Do you keep a tally of all of these minor victories for "DG wit and sarcasm"? There must be quite a few by now.
PC | 10.08.16 - 9:01 a.m. | #
|
|
They should have muted you, not blocked you and then you would have never have known and nor would we.
Running Correspondent | 10.08.16 - 9:08 a.m. | #
|
They just don't get it do they?
If I was really worried about it I could get depressed about their po-faced incompetence.
But I ain't so I won't.
Chris | 10.08.16 - 9:51 a.m. | #
|
I don't interact with Twitter very much either (using it mainly as a news resource) but have started the suggested Twitter "storm" by tweeting them requesting the unblocking of DG.
Politely. Of course.
Frank F | 10.08.16 - 9:52 a.m. | #
|
Unbelievable!
As another non-Twitter user I just don't get it!
Seems rather petty, especially as it was so brilliantly written you'd probably only notice the irony if you were a regular reader of this blog!
Cornish Cockney | 10.08.16 - 10:21 a.m. | #
|
|
Well, clearly not *your* Royal Docks, then, DG.
Andrew | 10.08.16 - 10:45 a.m. | #
|
I don't think it's petty revenge. The initial ill-advised retweeting, and the subsequent ill-advised blocking strike me as quite consistent, both with each other, and with the general notion that the relevant person in the Royal Docks Fan Club is probably over-worked, possibly under-paid, and may be very good at whatever they do when they are not handling subtle twitter issues.
Trying to create a twitter storm is over-reaction to a storm in a teapot, which in any case provided DG with material for another post. It also over-emphasises the importance of twitter itself.
DG, if I understand it correctly, is not blocked from doing anything on twitter except following Royal Docks, which he may have no overwhelming desire to do anyway.
Malcolm | 10.08.16 - 12:33 p.m. | #
|
Their muting DG would only mean they needn't see his (rare) Tweets, not that he couldn't see their vainglorious puffery. Whether he is particularly bothered or not, their blocking him is an act of humourless pompous-assery.
Have blocked them and told them why.
David | 10.08.16 - 2:23 p.m. | #
|
|
Hey David, I hope you told them and *then* blocked them, otherwise they won't have seen your act of humourless pompous-assery.
Bainbridge | 10.08.16 - 2:57 p.m. | #
|
|
School playground antics...grow-up.
E | 10.08.16 - 3:50 p.m. | #
|
Blocking you is ridiculous, but some social media wonks seem to think this is a great idea. Quite why is another matter.
For example, some years ago I ranted on Twitter about a website who had disabled the ability to press CTRL+C to copy some text. I didn't want to rip them off; I just wanted to copy some text and use it as a search term in Google.
I ranted about it on Twitter. Didn't talk to the website in question at all - didn't send them a message, nothing. Yes my rant included a starred out expletive, but I didn't engage with them directly. Just was outraged to my few hundred followers, probably few of whom ever cared.
Yet despite me never talking to them, never saying a word to them, said website blocked me from viewing their Twitter feed.
Is that really the way to engage with people? Seriously?
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 10.08.16 - 4:03 p.m. | #
|
I learnt a lot about the attractions at the docks from that post as well! I'm considering doing some of the things.
Also not a twitter user, and I would love get the joke!
Neyagness | 10.08.16 - 7:50 p.m. | #
|
|
Why are people getting so offended by their blocking of DG? Surely it just means that they won't see his future tweets? If that's what they want, it's up to them. It's not like they've publicly derided him; if DG hadn't told us so, we wouldn't even know that they'd done it.
Jim | 10.08.16 - 8:31 p.m. | #
|
Jim: DG was explicit about what the result of this "blocking" would be: DG said that RoyalDocks said "You [DG]are blocked from following @YourRoyalDocks and viewing @YourRoyalDocks's Tweets"
Whether in addition RoyalDocks cannot see DG's future tweets is not stated, but as you say, that probably does not matter to anyone.
Malcolm | 10.08.16 - 11:55 p.m. | #
|
|
I avoid all social media like the plague. But I can see the Dock's tweets. So if they are public to people not logged in then how can they block someone? I only go to twitter twitter to follow Number 10 Cat and Diplomog .. Just saying.
Antipodean | 11.08.16 - 1:10 a.m. | #
|
|
Malcolm: Ah yes I missed that DG can no longer see their tweets. But it seems pretty obvious that that is just a side effect of blocking, since (as Antipodean said) anyone can see them when not logged in. The real intention is surely to stop them seeing DG, and as you said that really doesn't matter.
Jim | 11.08.16 - 7:24 a.m. | #
|
Thing is, Twitter has a mute feature as well. If you want to just hide someone, this feature does the trick. The person you've muted never knows.
If you never want to see DG on Twitter, but don't want to look like a whingepot, mute is the way to go.
If the Royal Docks account had merely muted, there'd be no article, there'd be no fuss. No, they've made a statement by blocking.
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 11.08.16 - 9:19 a.m. | #
|
Ho-hum. I'm pretty much with Malcolm.
It can sting for a minute or two to find a comment deleted from somewhere... but one usually 'moves on'
RogerW | 11.08.16 - 11:24 a.m. | #
|
They've unblocked me.
This makes no difference to my life, but may make some of you happy.
diamond geezer | Homepage | 11.08.16 - 4:52 p.m. | #
|
|
I'm following them now. They also had a GIF of a kitten in a cup on Aug 8.
Bob L-S | 11.08.16 - 11:19 p.m. | #
|
|
|
TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy
|