In article <4a4f5e3c.5040...@gmail.com>, JC Dill
<jcdill.li...@gmail.com> writes
That's a great idea, use some lame Web 2.0 trend to communicate with
actual real life customers. </sarcasm>
I would assume they figured it was better than just remaining silent.
I'm about to recommend to an organisation that it [a twitter account]
is better than posting news of an outage on their low-volume website,
which will get swamped when too many people poll it for news.
What does the team think?
I don't understand why this is an either/or question. Why not post to both?
Yes, that can be done.
What I'm trying to anticipate is the objection to *also* posting to
Twitter, which might be raised on the grounds that it's too
"unofficial", or "unsupported" or something like that.
You control where we post.
Just email the right address and we'll do the right thing.
Post Everywhere? p...@posterous.com as usual
Twitter? twit...@posterous.com
Flickr? fli...@posterous.com
Facebook? faceb...@posterous.com
Tumblr? tum...@posterous.com
Any other blog? b...@posterous.com
Posterous only? poster...@posterous.com
Combine them! flickr+twit...@posterous.com
It's this richness which confuses the ordinary person. How are they to
know which bit of the scattergun approach is the right one to use? Or
whether "posting everywhere" has some hidden disadvantage.
--
Roland Perry
