« I almost converted.. | Main | Professional something »
Twitter and the lack of groups
I discussed with Corneel about the Twitter thing. He says it rocks. But then he also says he's annoyed by the overload of boring messages.
Meaning: the concept of Twitter is rock solid, the people spreading the messages are not always.
Or at least the relevance of the content of their messages in relation to the receiver. (Mmmm, would love to think on this one with C...)
I guess that the exact point of my problem with Twitter:
to me it isn't that relevant that Bart Netlash is going to play with his kid (no offense Bart :) ), but I guess some of his followers love to read that kind of information.
And then it comes to the friends part.
During the whole web2.0 upvival, the friends/network aspect became veryveryvery important.
You want friends, you need friends, you want to have the largest network of friends. (Check Myspace, or LinkedIn, or many others for that)
While in Twitter, friends are what they supposed to be: the closest network around. Those people who tell you they go to the toilet, and it makes you smile.
So there is this kind of interference: on the one hand you are gathering friends/network, on the other hand you think 'hey, I don't want to hear you peeing'
So do you delete these people from your list?
I think the thing I would love most and which would make me use Twitter is groups.
I don't want to post the fact that I am going to pee (ok, example can be changed now ;) ) to the whole world. But I guess joking it to a little group would make sense in a way, in a certain context they understand, knowing me, as a irl friend (and not a network-connection)
A kind of group-msn which is open all the time, different from IM/irc, irrelevant to direct contact.
In my group I'd post relevant messages.
While other stuff could be fun to post in the open.
Groups aren't available in Twitter, does this mean I have to start to delete my friends-list?
Posted on May 7, 2007
in Technical stuff
Digg this | 
Add to Delicious | Technorati reactions | Permalink | 
Comments (6)
Comments
I've been experimenting intensely with Twitter the last month.
I find that there are two uses for Twitter (and your vision about the groups is close to that):
- What am I *doing* for my close friends.
- What am I *thinking* for a wider audience.
My wife loves having the *doing* updates, and I love hers. It keeps us close during our time apart. It is the equivalent of the SMS text messages.
The second use is far more interesting. Twitter is a tool to spread ideas - almost instantly. If you post an interesting idea/link/question/event... on Twitter, it immediately explodes. (In contrast to blogging about it - blogs have a lag-time of about a day to spread ideas.)
Now the interesting thing is (just like it is in blogging): to be able to spread ideas, you have to have an audience. And guess what, people *love* an insight in your personal live, love to get the feeling they are listening to a real person. That is why the 'what am I doing' things on Twitter ("playing with my kid") also work for the larger audience. They give a sense of personality, of realness - authenticity that is needed to make your ideas thrustworthy.
Just like in blogging, where it's not (only) about the frequency of the posts and the format and the reactions, but just as much about the personal voice.
Another thing about Twitter, again in parallel with blogging: if your motivation does not come from within, you'll give up quickly. You should Twitter in the first place because you want to write down (for yourself) the things you do and think. If you're only Twittering because you want to spread your ideas, you'll have a tough time, especially in the long run.
(Phew - such a long comment. I could've never put this in the 140 Twitter characters...)
Posted by Bart | May 7, 2007 5:37 AMSo basically, you want a thin version of IRC over http?
Posted by Clopin | May 7, 2007 11:17 AMAsynchronous IRC with permalinks. And that makes all the difference.
The moment Twitter becomes IRC, I'm leaving.
Posted by Bart | May 7, 2007 11:21 AMAnd what do you exactly mean by that? What specific IRC part will make you leave?
Posted by Clopin | May 7, 2007 11:32 AMDitto Bart.
Right now there are two kinds of Twitter messages:
* personal one to one: "d nick message"
* public for everyone
Most complaints about low signal to noise ratios on Twitter have to do with personal one to many messages, of the kind you get when Twitter acts like IRC or a chat room.
You know --
A: going to bed
B: @A g'night
C: @A see ya!
A: thanks guys
Twitter already considers the @nick messages as replies to someone else.
Wouldn't it be something if there were a way to filter all @nick messages? If people started consistently using @nick for low signal/high noise messages, you'd be able to get only the "relevant" Twitter messages and not the fluff.
Posted by Michel Vuijlsteke | May 7, 2007 11:47 AMI agree with Bart, no reason to make it irc since, well irc already exists :)
The a-synchronity is what makes it special, and interesting.
The one-to-many aspect is certainly a plus, but as said the 'noise' how Michel is pointing it out, is spoiling it for me.
Though I'd call 'I am going to bed' noise ;)
No way I can imagine someone is interested in knowing that I am going to bed. And also no way I am interested in sharing that info to the whole world.
I'd share it to a group of friends. That's my point I tried to make.
To the world I'd share: heck, Apple is taking over Microsoft ;P or a url I really liked and which would become known to people who see my twitter but don't read my blog.
Posted by ine | May 7, 2007 12:18 PM