- ‹ previous
- 1961 of 2831
- next ›
Twitter Followup
TWITTER FOLLOWUP....Via James Joyner, Michael Arrington writes on his blog that he thinks Twitter has ruined uber-twitterer Robert Scoble's life:
I asked Robert how much time he actually spends on those services. He monitors them all day, he said, hitting refresh over and over on both (he doesn't use desktop clients to manage the services, and he says he doesn't like real-time streaming feature on Friendfeed). In addition to watching all day, he says he spends at least seven hours a day, seven days a week, actually reading and responding directly on those services.
That's 2,555 hours over the last year....It is an addiction.
What is the cost of this addiction? Well, I'll put his family life aside, that's his business. But his blog has clearly suffered. He now posts only a few times a week, sometimes sporadically writing multiple posts in a day but often skipping 3-4 days in between. A year ago, Robert wrote multiple posts, every day. I used to read his blog daily, now I visit once a week.
As an aside, I'll note how amusing it is that in the same way that people once complained that blogging crowded out "serious" long form work like books and magazine pieces, people are now starting to complain about Twitter crowding out "serious" blog posts. The worm, she does turn.
Anyway. I created a Twitter account a couple of days ago after I posted about it, since I figured that was the only way to get a better sense of what it was all about. So far, I've tweeted twice, so obviously I haven't exactly embraced the form. But in a way, I think Arrington's post captures one of the problems with Twitter: like Facebook, it doesn't really make too much sense unless you spend a lot of time with it. It doesn't have to be 2,555 hours a year, mind you, but both Facebook and Twitter strike me as things that are perhaps moderately useful if you use them occasionally, but potentially highly useful if you're logged into them constantly and use them as primary tools for keeping in touch with people. That's unlike the blogosphere, where most people pick three or four blogs to follow and read them once a day for 20 minutes or so, and it's one of the things that makes these services hard to "get" unless you're totally committed to them.
Of course, I could be full of hooey here. But that's my take so far.
The correct verb is "Twit".
At least it should be.
3 to 4 blogs? Is that what is considered a normal amount of blogs to read daily? I may need to see a professional.
If your twit last longer than four hours, see a doctor.
This new stuff loses me. I'm still trying to understand texting. You have a phone in your hand. So does a friend. You have something to say. So do they. Either call the number and have two human voices with inflection, warmth, anger, love or any of thousands of other enmotions and nuance express their thoughts. Or, disengage from everything you're doing, losing the use of both hands, and type? On a tiny keyboard with characters 1/32nd of an inch apart? WTF? Why not revive Morse Code if you're looking for ever more cumbersome, difficult ways to communicate?
As a morse code operator, I don't dispute its cumbersome nature, but I can assure you that's it's much faster and more elegant than texting, even with a full QWERTY setup on your mobile device, to say nothing of a standard phone keypad.
Welcome kdrum, I look forward to your tweets!
I, too, registered both a Facebook and Twitter to see what the fuss was all about. And in both cases promptly unregistered as I found I have no use for either.
As for text messaging using a cell phone, it is considerably cheaper than calling so I understand why, particularly young folks, use it. I use it myself, though I am not conversant in all of the abbreviations the youngsters use.
These phenomena are the human interaction analogs of the hypereconomic tools & behavior we see at a global scale. Different level of focus is all.
I`m not suggesting they can`t be useful etc but the current fadishness is as pointless as the global econominc hyperactivity that is in the process of imploding.
Remember the telegraph was once the kewlest thing in the world also.
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." - M. King Hubbert
Tweets are very similar to their natural analog: the tweeting of birds. It's simply a quick way of announcing to those within hearing what's up with you. For a bird, it's something like "Here I am" or "Come mate with me" or "Get out of my tree." For a human, of course, the messages can be more complex.
But all that Twitter provides is a simple way to broadcast a short message to those who are listening. Useful, although if you make it the center of your life, you may have other psychological issues you need to address.
As for text messaging using a cell phone, it is considerably cheaper than calling so I understand why, particularly young folks, use it. I use it myself, though I am not conversant in all of the abbreviations the youngsters use.
In many ways of measuring, it's actually FAR more expensive than calling. (Texting is more expensive than inkjet toner.)
But once you've bought a bundle of them, you're right.
But of course, the real draw of texting is:
a) you're in a class or meeting and it's much less obvious than a phone call.
b) the lack of a voice/sound connection makes it easier to lie about where you are
c) the difficulty of the communication makes it much harder for the object of your text to interrogate you. (Well, uh, I can't come in to MoJo today or blog, Inkblot has been throwing up all night.)
Hooray for Twitter. It siphoned off all of Scoble's time into unproductive activities, saving his dozens of blog readers from hours of unproductive time reading his insipid "thought leadership" blog.
Now if we can just find a way to get Arrington addicted too.
I'm going to start sending single-letter messages, so that I'll be at the forefront of the next communication revolution.
N
As for text messaging using a cell phone, it is considerably cheaper than calling
Apparently Mr. Brown is outside the US, where the pricing structures do indeed make it cheaper to shoot texts back and forth than to talk for five minutes.
In America, the land of "25,000 minutes for $49.99", that is not the case.
I started a twitter account a few days ago after your original post. I had heard about it sporadically and didn't really get it, but I thought I'd give it a whirl.
So far I'm enjoying it. A few old college buddies that live far away from me use it and that was a pleasant surprise. For me it recreates the essential pleasure of facebook, which is the status update.
I love the format. I view it as a challenge to every so often construct a koan or aphorism. It's like a little flicker of creativity. Others may find my tweets (whatever) annoying, but that is no matter.
I will continue with it for a while, but I'm apprehensive of possibly checking it too often. I don't want to end up an addict.
I, too, registered both a Facebook and Twitter to see what the fuss was all about. And in both cases promptly unregistered as I found I have no use for either.
How promptly? Neither Twitter nor Facebook are the kinds of services that instantly reveal their value. Both must be cultivated, like a garden. Would you dig up a vegetable patch because it didn't provide ripe tomatoes within 24 hours?
From now on please post your age for topics like Facebook and Twitter so we can confirm that you are all a bunch of old farts. You don't see the value of texting? Really? Facebook is a great way to keep in touch once you get it populated. As for Twitter, I have an account but I have only used it for "events"--some value. I'm 41.
...unlike the blogosphere, where most people pick three or four blogs to follow and read them once a day for 20 minutes or so, and it's one of the things that makes these services hard to "get" unless you're totally committed to them.
Of course, I could be full of hooey here....
I'd say you are. I've got over 80 feeds in Thunderbird and follow most of them daily.
Now if you want to... hold on a second... there's a ... whoa. pictures too... I'll be right back....
So why don't you Savvies twitter up an online rehap clinic for these poor techno-addicts.
Me, I am walking down the street to go visit, in person mind you, several of my friends who have voluntarily assembled in what was once known back in the pre-Twitter days as a Party.
Merry Christmas, ya all, if you can find the button for it on your gadget.
LOL
Oh great. Something else to further reduce people's attention spans.
I started to read Verecia's 10:09 comment, but lost interest before I got to the...
I see Kevin draws the line somewhere. He didn't sign up for Swoopo.
Speaking of passing curiosities, it's about time to dust off your mac and plug it in again.
Jerry, re texting, dont forget:
- You're in a club, dont have someone to talk with for the moment, but do not want to just be standing there on your own, so you send some random text to someone
- You're in a bus, tube or train or at a bus stop or the like, and you want to pass on a quick personal message without people listening in.
But yeah, otherwise you've pretty much covered the reasons for texting for me :-) Cause it's sure the most laborious form of communicating man must have invented the last decade or two.
Bush Lover, I can see the attraction of Facebook but have refused to sign up to yet another community site so far; but Twitter, no way. Seems a sheer exercise in vanity and vacuity to me. And I'm 37.
I'm 15 and Twiiter is for fags!
Brilliant!
Brilliant!