The 8 Most Annoying Types of Tweets

The 8 Most Annoying Types of Tweets

What I hate most about pointless tweets is that they’re a total waste of time from other people while I’m trying to waste my own time on Twitter. I’m not saying every tweet from these categories is annoying, but most of them are.

1. The Mysterious Link

I’m all for tweeting the link to something awesome, but please describe what makes it awesome instead of just asserting it’s awesomehood. Like instead of saying, “This link is so true! *link* I never thought of it before, but it really is true”  just say, “All male White Sox fans have dirt under their unsettlingly-long fingernails”.  That way it’s so much clearer.

2. Follow Me!

“Follow me please! 5 more followers and I’ll have an even 25 followers!” Guess who got this tweet- Your followers. Do you really think people will retweet that? If so, that makes one of us.

And as the Chicago Tribune’s @AmyGuth taught me a twitter seminar, even if you did get 5 more pity followers to put you at an even 25, chances are they will unfollow in the near future because they followed you for the wrong reason.

But I appreciate you wasting both of our time though.

3. The Celebrity Takedown

True story. I met a girl at a bar on a random weeknight and she gave me her number. But earlier in our courtship, I saw she was on twitter on her iPhone and I asked her what her screen name was and I eventually checked it out the next day.  She had recently sent out insulting tweets @DinaLohan or whatever her twitter name is, and I think some to Ashton Kutcher or someone of that ilk. Get a life,  deal broken.  She never got a call from me, and lost her chance to ride the T-train with those lame-o tweets.

4. Stay in Your Lane

It’s always akward when your favorite sports talking head, who you follow for breaking sports news, says he’s stoked about seeing Nickleback the same day as the new Mel Gibson movie.

5. Un-disprovable Lies

We all have the buddy who never scores when he is out with all the guys, but then at his cousin’s wedding in Puerto Rico he tweets, “Totally forgot how easy to get laid at weddings! Winning”, knowing damn well it can’t be independently verified since no witnesses are there and I’m not going to ask his mother later if that’s true.

Be weary of the cleverest of this breed, as often they will often “prove” it by doing the following twitter two-step, 1) asking a hot chick if she will take a picture with him, 2) texting that picture to his friends. Now it’s doubly un-provable and the game is afoot.

You’ll never catch him. He’s just too slick like that.


6. Immediate Double Tweets

I don’t like when people post a link to their own work twice, but I can understand it if the tweets are 2+ hours apart, but when it’s 20 minutes apart it’s pointless.

6.5  Just to Repeat

Hi, I’m not sure if you remember the point I tried to make all the way back with point #6, but I mentioned that immediate repetition is pointless.


7. Reply Baiting (This is shamefully over-thought, admittedly)

It’s human nature to want your tweets to engender  a lot passionate, heartfelt replies so it makes sense there are plenty of baiting tactics to do just that.  These two are the least clever.

1) Asking IF something was offensive or not, and, 2) asking a question using the word “could”.

#1- You can’t convince me that asking if something was offensive, without yourself taking a stand either way is any different than saying, “I’m willing to hear only from the loudest of those that were offended, regardless of their rationale, in order to drum up some angry speech that a simpleton could later misconstrue as entertaining.”

and #2 is aptly named because that is a pointless question, logically. Let’s consider, this could-question,  “Could the Cubs win the 2012 World Series?”. From a logical standpoint, yes they could  (though, I know they won’t). But if they don’t win in 2012 that does not disprove that they could have, it merely proves that they did not. To prove that they could NOT have won the World Series would be about impossible- like if the season were canceled, or they were banned from the playoffs, or it it was mid July and they were already mathematically eliminated.  So the only logically viable answer to that question is yes, the Cubs could win.

But it is a very weak ‘yes’, and one that is often unable to be proven positively (e.g. if the Cubs actually did win in 2012).  More often it’s merely not-disproven (e.g. if the Cubs lose but still could have won), and something being not-disproven is a pretty anticlimactic ending.

Since that question can logically yield only one answer, this  de-fanged question is colloquially asking, “Will the Cubs win the World Series in 2012?”, so just ask that.

Tune in next week reply-baiters when I answer once and for all: Could Obama’s closet homosexuality explain his satanic worship? and the week after that, you the audience will decide with in a civil forum: Are Racial Slurs offensive? If so, which ones specifically.


8. The facebook linked tweet that was clearly intended for Facebook and not Twitter

Chances are, I will forget where I was when I read, “Every single time it’s cloudy out…”


The pessimistic view of that: That tweet was a major waste of time.

The optimistic view: At least it wasn’t a waste of major time. Thank God it was on Twitter and didn’t waste too much time!.



Leave a comment
  • Could the Cubs win the World Series?

  • No.

    Hey you baited me into saying that! You're better than an expert baiter. Is there a word for that?

  • The funniest on Twitter: @FilthyRichmond

  • Worst kind of tweet is the celebrity kiss-ass RT bait. For example: "Yo can I get an RT for your biggest fan?" "Can I pretty please get a RT for my birthday?"

  • In reply to kinsella316:

    Great call, those are just kinda sad

  • what I hate is blog posts that have no value! I mean. you didn't call this girl out because she tweeted something you didn't like? please perhaps she was the lucky one! wink

    3. The Celebrity Takedown

  • In reply to ajwmedia:

    Thanks for reading and commenting in spite of this blog lacking value.

  • Your article about the tweets is worse than the tweets, thanks for wasting 5 minutes of my life.

  • Great one! 8. The facebook linked tweet that was clearly intended for Facebook and not Twitter

  • Isn't "annoying tweet" redundant?

  • This article was tweeted 22 times, thus validating its existence.


  • Guilty. I tweeted my link twice (though a day apart), so that sorta violated rule #6.

Leave a comment