Comments on: What would you do with your last Tweets?

By: Use Tweet 10000 to do some good with Twitter | Broadcasting Brain

Use Tweet 10000 to do some good with Twitter | Broadcasting Brain — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:17:27 +0000

[...] few weeks ago I wrote a little post called What would you do with your last Tweets? Here’s one of the key thoughts from that [...]

By: Mark Dykeman

Mark Dykeman — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:13:50 +0000

No question that RTs can have some value, but even if they are all good, dozens of RTs are overwhelming.

Thanks for stopping by!

By: NatMich

NatMich — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:52:20 +0000

Haha, conflicted on this point. I agree that too many straight-up RTs (straight up = no little personal touch or opinion added in front of the RT ) drive me nuts on an individual level. That said, when aggregated RTs carry valuable information since they are basically a new way to “digg” an idea, link or whatever information that tweet contains… or even the person that is being retweeted.

By: Michael Kozakewich

Michael Kozakewich — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:23:41 +0000

Actually, I think the biggest problem is that it's what people are expected to do. I'll keep an eye on my new followers (I block spammers), and there'll be some I really have no clue about. They're basically spamming, but they seem like real humans. It's like Twitter is for SEOs and internet marketers.

The only way to fix that is for Twitter itself to crack down on spam, and send the message that it's not okay to do. The question is, do they want to? It's not a simple question.

By: Ian Rountree

Ian Rountree — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 04:07:58 +0000

The trouble is that Twitter tried to be this, I think. Or had the potential. But as soon as it got big, it got exploited. Aside from instant messenger clients, how could one build a culture around small, intimate conversation that, at the same time, somehow manages to be persistant like Twitter or Plurk? And, ow to make it big enough that it's got culture, but keep it on-focus to avoid spam? It's a ver hard line to walk.

By: Mark Dykeman

Mark Dykeman — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:58:55 +0000

It does make me wonder if there's a need for a purely conversation based application, kind of like Plurk tried to be or that FriendFeed doesn't do as well as some would like.

By: Mark Dykeman

Mark Dykeman — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:57:45 +0000

Ah yes, the RT. Good point, that certainly adds to the clutter.

By: Mark Dykeman

Mark Dykeman — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:57:06 +0000

Good point, hadn't thought about the energy usage.

By: Ian Rountree

Ian Rountree — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:59:22 +0000

Media Hacks said it best when they said “Twitter is Scaleable, YOU are NOT!”

What happened to conversation? When many of us started Tweeting, we used it like microFacebook, updating people we knew. Now, it's business. It's media. It's a bit nuts, trying to make sense of one-shot snippets from nano-advertisers I'm following in reciprocity because that's what twitter is for… Now. It's not what many of us signed up for, but there's no escaping evolution. It's actually sort of awesome, watching the usage of such a simple thing change so rapidly.

By: Michael Kozakewich

Michael Kozakewich — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:08:47 +0000

The thing is, as long as it's not too many it's not too much. I'll read every tweet that comes my way, but I'll get annoyed when people keep RTing stupid things. Besides that, there's really no difference in my eyes if someone tweets once a day or once an hour.

The quality of the tweeting has far more to do with their worth than the frequency. So just make sure you keep the re-tweeting to a minimum, and try to mention things that say 'you'.