How Twitter's Staff Uses Twitter (And Why It Could Cause Problems)(readwriteweb.com)
readwriteweb.com
How Twitter's Staff Uses Twitter (And Why It Could Cause Problems)
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/twitters_staff_may_not_use_twitter_like_you_do_tha.php
20 comments
Couldn't agree more.
The author appears unfamiliar with how Twitter actually works pragmatically.
Anyone following more than 100-200 folks on Twitter is likely in the category of "Filthy Marketer."
Anyone routinely posting more than 3-4 times a day is likely also in the FM category, or is a babbler begging to be unfollowed or banished to Facebook.
The Twitter employees are using the tool in its most elegant fashion.
Article = F.
The author appears unfamiliar with how Twitter actually works pragmatically.
Anyone following more than 100-200 folks on Twitter is likely in the category of "Filthy Marketer."
Anyone routinely posting more than 3-4 times a day is likely also in the FM category, or is a babbler begging to be unfollowed or banished to Facebook.
The Twitter employees are using the tool in its most elegant fashion.
Article = F.
I am both disturbed and scared by the tone of this article. This user seems to possess both a sense of entitlement to using Twitter in a manner that the developers did not intend, and an expectation that his usage patterns (and even his worldview regarding social behavior) are somehow either "normal" or "ideal." People with this level of gregariousness in real life terrify me, because they inevitably try to get over-involved in your life or disregard the entire concept of privacy.
People like should them just go away. Some of us like to keep to ourselves, and choose who we associate with, thank you very much!
People like should them just go away. Some of us like to keep to ourselves, and choose who we associate with, thank you very much!
That's just a part of it for many of the rest of us; people also use it for serious business, for research, for alerting the public at large about important news
I can tell you right now, whatever those people think they're doing on Twitter, it is neither serious nor important.
I can tell you right now, whatever those people think they're doing on Twitter, it is neither serious nor important.
So, when Portland's Office of Emergency Management uses twitter to notify people of severe weather alerts, or the public transit system tweets about system breakdowns, that's not serious or important? Just because you assert it doesn't mean Twitter can't be a useful broadcast medium.
So when Twitter is down people die in hurricanes? I don't think so, somehow.
Given Twitter's quality of service (which is admittedly getting better, but still pretty bad), I can't see how using it for anything but purely informational messages would be a good idea.
It frankly seems downright dangerous for people to start depending on their Twitter feeds for critical information, particularly if the organizations disseminating that information start relying on Twitter rather than maintaining their own more fault-tolerant infrastructures (like weather-alert radio or the Emergency Broadcast System). I hope and suspect that Portland OEM is smarter than that, but it seems like it could be dangerously tempting for a budget-constrained agency to try and outsource broadcasting to a totally inappropriate medium.
It frankly seems downright dangerous for people to start depending on their Twitter feeds for critical information, particularly if the organizations disseminating that information start relying on Twitter rather than maintaining their own more fault-tolerant infrastructures (like weather-alert radio or the Emergency Broadcast System). I hope and suspect that Portland OEM is smarter than that, but it seems like it could be dangerously tempting for a budget-constrained agency to try and outsource broadcasting to a totally inappropriate medium.
This story is ridiculously stupid (and this is coming from someone who makes a service that favored well in this review: Tipjoy).
If anything, twitter is defined by making as open a system as possible, and letting the community decide how to use it. I think that's awesome.
It also makes it completely irrelevant how the employees themselves use it.
If anything, twitter is defined by making as open a system as possible, and letting the community decide how to use it. I think that's awesome.
It also makes it completely irrelevant how the employees themselves use it.
It seems that the author feels like since the employees don't use it how he uses it, his needs will not be met when they decide to meet changes. It's a decent point (see the fury resulting from the @ reply changes), but overblown in this article.
Wow. Not following over 500 people and only tweeting three times a day counts as barely using twitter.
Yeah 500 people? Come on. I have lunch with more than 500 people most days. Unless you're following 100,000+ you're a nobody with no friends, and nobody likes you. And unless you tweet at least every 10 minutes of your life (including sleep - set your alarm - I do), you're letting yourself, and humanity down. Now go up to your bedroom, and think long+hard about what sort of person you want to be. A nobody? or a twelebrity!!!1!1£
Just had an idea, create a service, like a google/reader for different twitter accounts you create. then create one for technology, news, friends + family etc... a feature would be of course to have a few pre made profiles you could start out with and edit
-
-
Read the comments on the site. It's disheartening how many people seem to agree with him :(
"Twitter employees don't follow very many other people."
That's very unusual behavior on Twitter. Most people on staff are being followed by more than 1,000 people
Complete non-sequitur
That's very unusual behavior on Twitter. Most people on staff are being followed by more than 1,000 people
Complete non-sequitur
I wonder if the author of this article has noticed the correlation between "people who don't use twitter all that much" (ie, the staff at twitter) and "people who actually get things done" (ie, the staff at twitter).
I cannot imagine how anyone with a job manages the kind of usage the author seems to expect at a minimum, unless your job title is "Twitter User". Words are kind of failing me contemplating that point, actually. Who are these people who can afford to use Twitter all day every day, and still somehow remain in the technocracy?
I cannot imagine how anyone with a job manages the kind of usage the author seems to expect at a minimum, unless your job title is "Twitter User". Words are kind of failing me contemplating that point, actually. Who are these people who can afford to use Twitter all day every day, and still somehow remain in the technocracy?
This is exactly what I thought: "Uh, what if the reason Twitter developers aren't using Twitter much is because they are developing Twitter?"
I unfollowed the so-called 'power users' a long time ago. People like Chris Brogan, Scoble, Guy Kawasaki, etc. There was too much noise and not enough signal.
For my own uses, I couldn't possibly follow 1000 people. I would much prefer to follow a smaller number of people and be able to read all their tweets. I currently follow around 300, most of whom tweet a handful of times each day. Following 1000 people who update dozens of times each day doesn't seem like it's scalable. You would either have to ignore 90% of what you saw, or spend the majority of your day watching Twitter.
The fact that Twitter employees use Twitter in the same way that most of their users use Twitter is not worth complaining about. It's exactly what you would expect. The fact that a handful of people (ab)use Twitter and take it to extremes doesn't mean that anyone else needs to.
This sort of article is exactly why tech reporting gets a bad rap.