-
RECENTLY I WROTE:
- A quick trip back to Sorrento
- Vimeo relaunches with new features
- You wait for a bus…
- The miniature world of London commuters
- Some sound advice
- LCDVF: an entry-level viewfinder for DSLR film-makers
- Time for a refresh
- Google+ gets a new lightbox
- Hampshire frozen in time (capsule)
- What the new Canon C300 can do
favourites
Archives
My Twitter updates
- The Incredible Shrinking New York Times http://t.co/34jzZ9sC posted 0 minutes ago
- Woman's infected jaw removed, 3D printed replacement implanted http://t.co/J6RYwHyE posted 3 minutes ago
- RT @nat_bur: RT @Alan_Machnik: Best. Snowman. Ever. http://t.co/kpdybiLh posted 6 minutes ago
- Broken boiler update: +12 in the bedroom overnight. BUT my woollen hat can also be used as an eye mask, so all is good. posted 1 hour ago
- RT @the99percent: The Counter-Intuitive Benefits of Small Time Blocks - http://t.co/xvbJR0lo #recent99 posted 18 hours ago
- So, whose Pinterest boards are worth following? posted 18 hours ago
photography
multimedia and photojournalism
Me on Flickr
Javascript Flickr Badge, by Erik Rasmussen, requires javascript.Instagrams
Tag Archives: Twitter
Your tweets give me a headache
Today I unfollowed someone on Twitter. He is a relatively good journalist (no naming and shaming, sorry), but he is a rubbish Twitter user. Let me explain.
As those of you who use Twitter know, it only allows 140 characters per message. Many of us take Twitter for granted now, but even a couple of years ago questions were being asked about its relevance and usefulness. How can you express yourself in 140 characters? Well, we’ve learned pretty quickly how to be concise and informative at the same time; witty and useful. Some people shorten words, some manage to write very precise tweets and remain eloquent within the 140 character limit. There are URL shorteners, image uploaders and other tools which make it possible to condense so much information into 140 characters.
Yet some cannot really understand that Twitter is a different medium with different rules. The guy I unfollowed was one of them.
He’s a seasoned journalist, has been writing for newspapers for almost two decades, but is unable (or more likely – unwilling) to change his habits for Twitter. He posts very long thoughts which he splits into several, usually four or five tweets.
I dip in and out of Twitter and I suspect many others do too. So when I see a half-finished sentence I don’t really understand it, I don’t want to wait around for parts two, three, four and possibly five. It doesn’t make sense. If you follow even a couple of hundred of people, your Twitter stream is constantly changing, constantly moving. Trying to find a tweet that was posted earlier to combine it with the one that has just popped up on your screen doesn’t make sense. Following someone who posts multi-tweet thoughts persistently doesn’t make sense either. Hence the unfollow.
In case he’s reading, here are some other alternatives for those pesky longer thoughts which don’t fit into a tweet:
Tumblr – mostly meant for short updates, very conveniently built to allow users to post either just text or video or audio or image or quote or link – or a combination of those. Used to host everything – from image-focused mini-blogs to portfolios and fully-functional blogs. Just like Twitter it allows you to follow other Tumblr users and reblog their stuff.
Posterous – just like Tumblr, but allows posting on the go by email. A nice gallery functionality too. Many people use it as their primary blogging platform, but it’s good enough for shorter posts too.
Blogging platforms – erm, hello? WordPress, Blogger, Typepad – no, really, this is 2010.
Use any of them, really, and then just tell Twitter. It’s that simple, seriously.
Just. Don’t. Split. Your. Tweets. It gives me a headache.
Related articles by Zemanta
- The Merger of Blogs and Social Networks (onemanandhisblog.com)
- Ramon Nuez: I Can’t Live Without Twitter But Tumblr Is Just Better (huffingtonpost.com)
- What’s Twitter Say About Your Personality? (twitterrati.com)
Sink the love boat, step back from Twitter
There are many things I can write about yesterday’s Election night, but I really want to mention two.
First, the mutual appreciation society on BBC One. The Corporation made a huge effort to provide its viewers with comprehensive election coverage, yet spoilt it all with its celebrity love boat. The sight of Brucie repeating his very tired “Nice to see you…” routine for the zillionth time on a boat full of B-listers angered me beyond belief. I don’t care what Bruce Forsyth, Piers Morgan, Mariella Frostrup or even Ian Hislop have to say. I just want to see the results and hear commentary and analysis from people who know what they’re talking about. Mariella and Brucie didn’t.
If politicians are disconnected, so is the BBC. Can the Corporation honestly justify spending licence fee money on a bunch of usual suspects who stuffed their faces with canapés and champagne and contributed virtually nothing? Why not go a step further and use the election night to promote another Lloyd-Webber show or ask Anton DuBeke to perform the cha cha every time new results are announced?
The second thing is Twitter. Or to be more precise, one its many facets, the one commonly known as the echo chamber effect. Don’t savage me. I’m not criticising Twitter or denying its role in the campaign. I was simply looking at the stream of disappointed tweets last night and earlier this morning. No, they didn’t win. No, Nick Clegg is not the saviour. Despite what Twitter might have led you to believe.
And yes, I know that the hindsight makes things easier, but the echo chamber quality of Twitter has been discussed before. Many wiser and more knowledgeable people have written more convincing things about it than me. But in case you don’t know it yet, Twitter does not necessarily reflect what the wider world thinks. Take its “wisdom of crowds” with a massive pinch of salt.
Because if I was to believe in what trends on Twitter, I would have to conclude that Justin Bieber is the biggest artist this planet has ever had.
Related articles by Zemanta
- General Election TV: BBC’s sinking ship of celebrities (telegraph.co.uk)
Should journalists use Twitter?
(Is the pope Catholic?)
Don’t forget about the content
In all our conversations about how to use Twitter, we seem to forget about one crucial thing – the content.
What you say says a lot about who you are. Granted, not everyone is on Twitter to spread groundbreaking ideas, analyse the world in 140 characters or offer you solutions to your problems.
But some people’s use of Twitter reveals a distinct lack of content. Or at least any meaningful content.
So maybe this totally unscientific list of my observations from using Twitter might give you some idea as tho what to expect – or who to avoid – when the following happens:
- when someone keeps saying ‘uh, oh – another 1000 followers, well thanks, but not sure why you’re following me, I’m so boring’ they probably are. Unfollow.
- then again some people will only talk numbers – numbers of followers, tweets, retweets, their position in the most retweeted charts, etc. Unless you’re an accountant and/or define your life by the number of people you follow, avoid.
- if the person you follow keeps talking about their cat only – perhaps they should get their cat a profile. Unfollow.
- Twitter is full of specialists. Or ‘specialists’. To become a specialist and to gain and share specialist knowledge takes a while. Or at least longer than ‘since last Tuesday’
- if someone follows you and they follow 2,000 other people, but have only one update: “Cheap Viagra/laptop/iPod” – do what you would do with an email with the subject line ‘Cheap Viagra”
- retweeting is useful, in fact that’s what makes Twitter uniquely fast. But retweeting absolutely everything all the time is like reading a newspaper aloud on a packed train. A bit unsocial.
- Twitpic is for sharing pictures. Drunken, fuzzy shots you took with your mobile while covering the lens with your finger make for great content only once in a while. Don’t overdo it.
Totally unscientific, purely empirical. Agree to disagree.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=8790cb01-a1bb-4213-8df2-bebcaa73d12b)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=36fded71-bb77-4e27-bfe3-f9ba0c7e3b90)












