Unless someone can demonstrate how effective each tweet is (maybe by retweets, or by how quickly employers respond (if at all), or by actual hirings) they're really just as good as each other. Data is key here.
The author is making the very common mistake of believing more information and a more verbose writing style makes better marketing. The opposite is true in so many situations. I can certainly believe that something very short like "I have a first class in X. Please RT" would be much more effective at actually getting retweets.
There's two dimensions: what's more likely to be retweeted (=reach), and what's more likely to be considered by a potential employer or someone referring to a potential employer. I'd guess the proposed form is better for the second part, but it's a guess. And depending on your network, reach might be more important to actually get seen by interested parties.
Ideally of course, you get RT'd by people that have worked with you and vouch for you.
Hey @onion2k, this is not a full proof way of getting a job. Every time I see this, I am asking, why should I hire you? If you can give me something extra, more meat, the context for demonstrable skills, then I can talk to you. That's the point I am coming from.
Unless someone can demonstrate how effective each tweet is (maybe by retweets, or by how quickly employers respond (if at all), or by actual hirings) they're really just as good as each other. Data is key here.
The author is making the very common mistake of believing more information and a more verbose writing style makes better marketing. The opposite is true in so many situations. I can certainly believe that something very short like "I have a first class in X. Please RT" would be much more effective at actually getting retweets.