Re: Who's on Twitter?
At 02:20 PM Saturday 1/3/2009, David Land wrote: >In my experience, the least interesting tweeple I suppose calling them "twits" is frowned upon . . . >are the ones who use >twitter as a kind of public instant message with their friends. Every >message is a reply to someone else, and they often look something >like: > >@boogerbrain *Yawn* >@mesopotamia That's what she said! >@fooboo Was that thing actually _on_ your plate? >@noobee If you say so, but actually, I like em crunchy. > >I wonder if these people have anything at all to say on their own... The conversation in the Niven chat room (in session now) is rather more intelligent than the above . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who's on Twitter?
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, David Land wrote: > Julia, > >> OK, that one looks somewhat more interesting than some of the Tweets I see >> dumped to LiveJournal. > > Thank you (if you're referring to my twitter feed). I try to remember > that the people who are following me (there are a little under a > hundred, with some falling off and new ones replacing them over time) > are an audience, so I write with them in mind. > >> Then again, the less interesting things are in response to other Tweets, >> and the person Tweeting the most is engaged in discussions with other >> folks. > > In my experience, the least interesting tweeple are the ones who use > twitter as a kind of public instant message with their friends. Every > message is a reply to someone else, and they often look something > like: > > @boogerbrain *Yawn* > @mesopotamia That's what she said! > @fooboo Was that thing actually _on_ your plate? > @noobee If you say so, but actually, I like em crunchy. That's what the most prolific feed I see is, mostly. Except a little more interesting than that. It lends a cheerful surreality to my day, so I don't complain. And I get information about the guy's life that I wouldn't otherwise. > I wonder if these people have anything at all to say on their own... That one does, actually. His LJ is about half LoudTwitter and half actual posts with real information, and it's usually information I'm glad to have. (Even if it's bad stuff, I like to know what's going on with folks.) > There is a hierarchy of engagement on Twitter in which following is > worth one "point", replying is worth more -- maybe two to five > "points", and retweeting is maybe double that again. I don't think > I've been retweeted. Not bleeding edge enough, I guess. I know someone who has a Twitter account just so's he can send stuff to his to-do list, which is on a website which won't take text messages, but will accept Tweets and convert them into to-do items. He has several people following him, and the fact of that creeps him out just a little. (I think they just need the clue that he's not intending to interact with anyone there.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who's on Twitter?
Julia, > OK, that one looks somewhat more interesting than some of the Tweets I see > dumped to LiveJournal. Thank you (if you're referring to my twitter feed). I try to remember that the people who are following me (there are a little under a hundred, with some falling off and new ones replacing them over time) are an audience, so I write with them in mind. > Then again, the less interesting things are in response to other Tweets, > and the person Tweeting the most is engaged in discussions with other > folks. In my experience, the least interesting tweeple are the ones who use twitter as a kind of public instant message with their friends. Every message is a reply to someone else, and they often look something like: @boogerbrain *Yawn* @mesopotamia That's what she said! @fooboo Was that thing actually _on_ your plate? @noobee If you say so, but actually, I like em crunchy. I wonder if these people have anything at all to say on their own... There is a hierarchy of engagement on Twitter in which following is worth one "point", replying is worth more -- maybe two to five "points", and retweeting is maybe double that again. I don't think I've been retweeted. Not bleeding edge enough, I guess. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who's on Twitter?
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, David Land wrote: > I'm no twitter as http://twitter.com/dland Nick has been kind enough > to mention me several times in his musings on Twitter. OK, that one looks somewhat more interesting than some of the Tweets I see dumped to LiveJournal. Then again, the less interesting things are in response to other Tweets, and the person Tweeting the most is engaged in discussions with other folks. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who's on Twitter?
I'm no twitter as http://twitter.com/dland Nick has been kind enough to mention me several times in his musings on Twitter. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who's on Twitter?
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Ronn! Blankenship < ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > Please forgive me if this is seems an ignorant question, but my > impression has been that Twitter is primarily useful for folks who > are on their "smart" phones texting most of the day, rather than > those of us whose primary on-line access is from our desktops . . . > > Right? Wrong? Totally stupid? Not stupid, but not right. You don't have to use a phone at all to use Twitter. In fact, it took me a while to figure out how to get anything on my phone (which may have been stupid). Twitter is micro-blogging. Here's my take on what it really is good at, in terms of productivity: http://www.nickarnett.net/2008/12/31/twitter-massively-parallel-self-organization-of-points-of-view/ Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who's on Twitter?
At 04:18 PM Friday 1/2/2009, Nick Arnett wrote: >I've caught the Twitter bug, partly because it's a very interesting data set >and I'm analyzing it. >See http://nickarnett.net for that stuff. > >I'm at http://twitter.com/nick_arnett > >Any other Brinellers tweeting these days? > >Nick Please forgive me if this is seems an ignorant question, but my impression has been that Twitter is primarily useful for folks who are on their "smart" phones texting most of the day, rather than those of us whose primary on-line access is from our desktops . . . Right? Wrong? Totally stupid? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Who's on Twitter?
I've caught the Twitter bug, partly because it's a very interesting data set and I'm analyzing it. See http://nickarnett.net for that stuff. I'm at http://twitter.com/nick_arnett Any other Brinellers tweeting these days? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
