Comments on: When did @username gain currency as a way of highlighting a reply in online discussions?

Question: When did @username gain currency as a way of highlighting a reply in online discussions?

feelinglistless — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:07:00 -0800

When did @username gain currency as a way of highlighting a reply in online discussions?

I've probably noticed this more since I began using Twitter more regularly, but it's certainly on the increase. At Metafilter I've usually seen:

>feelinglistless

feelinglistless:

or the original comment in italics

(sometimes including a link back to the original comment)

But @username is becoming more prevalent even here and I was just wondering if this was this in use pre-Twitter or has Twitter simply copied existing etiquette?

By: chiababe

chiababe — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:18:06 -0800

Digg users use this version of replying most of the time.

By: grouse

grouse — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:19:05 -0800

@username is becoming more prevalent even here

Oh no it isn't! *sticks fingers in ears, head in sand*

We discussed this two years ago and it appears to have gained popularity through Digg, but I think Twitter has made it even more popular. It may have started somewhere else, but I would blame Digg for its popularization.

By: muddgirl

muddgirl — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:19:14 -0800

I first saw it prevalently used in the Gawker Media blogs, back before they switched to linked, and eventually threaded, comment sections. The "@username" is now codified in that it is automatically generated when you click on a "reply-to" link. I'm not claiming this is the first use of the format, but it is certainly an early and influential one.

By: caddis

caddis — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:20:04 -0800

I would say that it has not gained currency here, although some people do use it. It's basically a rather rude form of address (no one want to be talked at) to be denigrated here at mefi.

By: Aquaman

Aquaman — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:27:58 -0800

Plus it's misleading, as the @ symbol is universally seen as an indicator of an email address. It's also "grammatically" incorrect: would you say "At FeelingListless, I've got a comment for you..."?

I hate it. Fark's convention is pretty good, bolding the name of the subject user whenever it's used.

By: feelinglistless

feelinglistless — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:28:33 -0800

I should have said I do like its usage. It differentiates nicely the replies from the new comments.

By: solipsophistocracy

solipsophistocracy — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:32:14 -0800

Monitoring use of "@username" is a good way to tell who pays attention to social conventions around here, and who chooses to ignore nuance and import norms from lesser websites.

By: thisisnotbruce

thisisnotbruce — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:57:43 -0800

I remember using this '@username' nomenclature on local BBS forums in the early 90's.

Typically, it would be used when there were multiple recipients to the message. '@username' would be used to call out that a particular line in your reply was more for that specific user rather than a reply to the group.

@solipsophistocracy: Social conventions? Pfft.

By: Happy Dave

Happy Dave — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:29:18 -0800

It's used heavily on various SF-related blogs and forums, many of which have heavy cross-over with the old-school Usenet crowd.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:50:50 -0800

feelinglistless wrote:

> When did @username gain currency as a way of highlighting
> a reply in online discussions?

When enough people wandered onto the internet with no sense of netiquette, probably while carrying live chickens, to drown out the voice of reason.

I can't remember seeing this on SF usenet from back in the late 80s/early 90s.

By: Wasabunchi

Wasabunchi — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:45:57 -0800

I recall "@name" being used in IRC channels in 2002. It's certainly not a new phenomenon.

By: blackunicorn

blackunicorn — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:19:33 -0800

Wasabunchi, in IRC, "@name" is how ops are identified.

As to the original question, I first remember seeing it as in unthreaded blog comments in this format: @[name][time of comment]. I thought it was an elegant way to keep from having to clog up an already convoluted conversation with quotes.

By: arnicae

arnicae — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:22:31 -0800

I can't find the reference, but I got called out on metafilter for responding to someone using the "@_______" format- apparently it is considered pretty rude. I thought it was neat and tidy, but have since stopped using it assuming everyone else knew something I didn't.

By: the latin mouse

the latin mouse — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:17:16 -0800

I use an italicised quote if I'm referring to a specific sentence, I tend to go with @username otherwise. Bolding is an unnecessary eyedrag and the caret lacks elegance. I'll switch over to a colon though, since so many people appear to find the symbol rude.

(I'm still not quite seeing the argument for 'it's rude'. If you make a comment directed at a specific user, why not use an at symbol to make that clear?)

And if there are a large number of people with a violent hatred for the convention, it might be worth dropping a line in the FAQ about what the preferred format is. @username is SOP elsewhere on the web and newbies are not mind readers.

By: grouse

grouse — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:54:37 -0800

If you make a comment directed at a specific user, why not use an at symbol to make that clear?

Because it's rude to talk at people rather than talking to them.

I just added "How should I reply to a comment?" to the FAQ suggestion queue.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:08:42 -0800

If you make a comment directed at a specific user, why not use an at symbol to make that clear?

the_latin_mouse, it turns out that the English language already contains a mechanism whereby you can do that without recourse to an unrelated typographical symbol and in a fashion that's more friendly and less peremptory and businesslike than using that symbol.

By: astrochimp

astrochimp — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:58:51 -0800

Re: "It's basically a rather rude form of address (no one want to be talked at) to be denigrated here at mefi." and "Because it's rude to talk at people rather than talking to them."

Might it not also be rude to take everything so literally and presume that rudeness abounds where none is intended? Frankly, I've never even thought that it might betray any implicit offensiveness.

But, then again, I'm Canadian and play well with others, so I might not know what I'm talking about.

By: softlord

softlord — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:41:35 -0800

Plus it's misleading, as the @ symbol is universally seen as an indicator of an email address. It's also "grammatically" incorrect: would you say "At FeelingListless, I've got a comment for you..."?

@Aquaman (;)) it is grammatical if you imply a "directed" before the @ symbol.

"Directed at Aquaman: it is...."

By: Aquaman

Aquaman — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:29:40 -0800

And if you imply other things, it's not. I still find the construction awkward and ungainly, even with the implied verb. Been BBSing since the early 1980's, FWIW.