More moaning about Twitter....

[Sam Slater]

[quote]You point out in your comment what Twitter can do, but those things can also be done on Facebook[/quote]

Of course, but your expectations of others, and their's of you, are different. People expect more interaction on facebook. It's a bit like the difference between a phonecall and a text. You wouldn't call your girlfriend/wife and say, "I'll be round in 5 mins." then put the phone down on her without further ado, would you? It would be rude. I think thing goes for facebook. No one expects as much interaction on twitter than that appeals to many, as you can see by the usage.

[quote]You use some interesting analogies, and I will use one here. If someone only requires 50p to buy a bar of chocolate then one could argue that 50p would be sufficient to have at their disposal - and they need no more than that. However, if someone has ?10.00 in their pocket, they also have 50 pence, and a lot more.[/quote]

That analogy doesn't work because there is no expectation to buy more than you need. That's why I chose pets/meals analogies. People expect you to put more effort into rearing a puppy than a goldfish. My old friend from school will expect more interaction from me on facebook than he would on twitter. Get it? Why would you 'friend' someone on facebook you hardly know? Twitter is better for that. For instance, if you were interested in keeping up to date on how my knee felt after a hard run this morning, or what my first impression was about Christopher Hitchens's death, but couldn't care less about where I was born, what my favourite colour was, what my first school was called or my gcse results; if you hadn't the slightest interest in my first job, how many kids I had and to whom I'd decided to share my life, nor wanted to know the starsign of my mum, dad, brother, sister and friends then you wouldn't want to 'friend' me on facebook, would you? Twitter, though, would be ideal. You're 'following' me for little snippets about my life I may feel like sharing but we're not 'friends'.

I may want to follow Stephen Fry on Twitter to find out what he thinks about current events but I have no interest on joining a facebook 'fan page' where everyone talks about how fantastic Stephen Fry is. It's a passing interest in someone rather that an infatuation. I can follow people on Twitter and they don't have to follow me in return....and vice versa. Again, it's all about expectations and etiquette.

[andy at handiwork]

So why ask?

[max_tranmere]

On this issue of the limited space on Twitter, most users would like more room and this is proven by the fact people shorten everything. They are trying to get 50 words into a space designed for 30 with "what are you doing today?" becoming "wot u doin 2day", etc. If people were happy with the limited room, and only had that very short amount of monologue to put, they would put the full version of what they wanted to say and it would fit. But no, they have more to say that the limited room allows and have to shorten the text to death. That confirms to me that users want more space, so the limited space idea, by the creators of Twitter, was a bad one.

[Deuce Bigolo]

Speaking for the masses

People use shortened words because their quicker and its what their used to in this texting age

Anyone on twitter who wants to go into more depth simply links to another format such as a blog or a live journal etc and directs followers there

For example softcore model Sian Wilshaw
is on twitter under supposebly her real name
which is nothing more than short comments which link to her more in depth messages and photos on her blogspot kittenish-behaviour

Twitter is a public marketing / news tool to the masses

Facebook with all of its privacy concerns is becoming more and more
mostly private networking

[Sam Slater]

You got no reply to my last post, Max?

As for Twitter being a 'bad idea', you must be joking. Weren't estimates earlier this year of it's worth for a potential buyer around the $8billion mark? Yeah, real bad idea.

Isn't Twitter, in 2011, close to Facebook in terms of growth, as a percentage of users?

The worst thing Twitter can do is give users the inbuilt capability of unlimited text per tweet. If every tweet in my timeline was 500 words long I just wouldn't have the time to read them all, which would mean following fewer people or just not bothering to check in at all. What you think are it's disadvantages compared to Facebook is it's real strengths. I know I'm not persuading you but maybe 250 million tweets per day might? Hmm? How about that, Max?

Twitter is quick, simple and unobtrusive and should stay that way.

[max_tranmere]

I hear what you say but the fact someone has to add a link, so the receiver can read what they want to say, again suggests they would have liked more room. If I wanted to send a friend several paragraphs, telling them what I've been doing lately, I can't do it on Twitter - unless I've written it in a blog piece or somewhere else, and attached the link. With Facebook or with an email I can just write paragraphs of words in the message.

[max_tranmere]

*People expect more interaction on facebook.*
*No one expects as much interaction on twitter than that appeals to many, as you can see by the usage.*

That is because you CAN HAVE more interaction on Facebook than on Twitter. Limited room on Twitter is all that's available. Regarding the usage, this is clever marketing, the thing has become huge, and everyone jumped on the bandwagon. Me included - in the sense that I use the thing but only, as I said earlier, when it is for conversing with someone who only has that as a means of contact. I sometimes just do a sentence or two, and I can fit that in one message, but sometimes I do more and have to submit numerous parts, like 1., 2., 3., etc - with abbreviations galour.

*Quote:

You use some interesting analogies, and I will use one here. If someone only requires 50p to buy a bar of chocolate then one could argue that 50p would be sufficient to have at their disposal - and they need no more than that. However, if someone has ?10.00 in their pocket, they also have 50 pence, and a lot more.

That analogy doesn't work because there is no expectation to buy more than you need.*

But you might want to, you have the choice to, or you can buy the small thing. On Facebook I have sometimes responded with one word answers, sometimes with whole paragraphs.

*My old friend from school will expect more interaction from me on facebook than he would on twitter. *

That's because it's all that is available. A telephone service where you can only talk for 30 seconds, rather than unlimted talk time (and say that thing becomes popular through clever mass marketing) would have people saying about it: "but I'm only bound to want to say a brief bit of monlouge to you, aren't I?" That's because it is all they can do, they get used to it, they are into the whole thing because everyone else is, so it seems ordinary and it seems enough. It wouldn't to me though.

*Why would you 'friend' someone on facebook you hardly know? *

Loads of people have 'Facebook friends' they hardly know. Most people will tell you they have many more friends on Facebook than they do in their real life.

*For instance, if you were interested in keeping up to date on how my knee felt after a hard run this morning, or what my first impression was about Christopher Hitchens's death, but couldn't care less about where I was born, what my favourite colour was, what my first school was called or my gcse results; if you hadn't the slightest interest in my first job, how many kids I had and to whom I'd decided to share my life, nor wanted to know the starsign of my mum, dad, brother, sister and friends then you wouldn't want to 'friend' me on facebook, would you? Twitter, though, would be ideal. *

All that stuff may appear on someones Facebook page but someone who corresponds with someone on there doesn't get bombarded with it every time they want to exchange messages. It is there but they won't look at it every time. They just fire of a message, get one back, and so on. So it is the same as conversing on Twitter. Only, as I keep saying, you can do longer and more in-depth messages on Facebook if you desire, or keep it to a word or a sentence if desired.

*I may want to follow Stephen Fry on Twitter to find out what he thinks about current events but I have no interest on joining a facebook 'fan page' where everyone talks about how fantastic Stephen Fry is. *

If Stephen Fry has a Facebook page (he probably does) then someone will get updates about his life on there too. If Twitter had never happened, then Facebook would be the sole place for such info, and for sending and receiving mesages from him (if he chooses to reply to members of the public when they send him stuff).

*It's a passing interest in someone rather that an infatuation. I can follow people on Twitter and they don't have to follow me in return....and vice versa. Again, it's all about expectations and etiquette.*

Not sure I agree with that, one can be VERY into someone, or just vaguely into them, and send them a message via Facebook and get a reply. Also, if the person updates their Facebook page all the time with what they are up to, then their fans and followers get that instant update. Twitter is kind of 'cool', and this is clever marketing as I've said. I wonder if one day someone WILL invent a new kind of telehone where you can only talk for 30 seconds - it could be called 'chatbite', 'quick-chat' or something. It is marketed very well, takes off, all the celebs get into it, and it is mentioned on the news all the time. The public will then get into it aswell and when someone like me points out how it is not as good as having unlimited time to convey what you want to say, everyone will say I'm out of touch and that this new thing has many advantages, etc. If someone takes a step back and really analysies, rather than just follow the cool trend that is the thing to be into, they would see that it is not as good. People, sadly, are like sheep and just follow.

[max_tranmere]

I've just responded to your last comment, above. Here is my reply to this one.

*As for Twitter being a 'bad idea', you must be joking. Weren't estimates earlier this year of it's worth for a potential buyer around the $8billion mark? Yeah, real bad idea.*

It is certainly massively popular, therefore a huge business success and it is inevitably therefore worth a lot of money. I still come back to what I have said about how if something is marketed very well, it is mentioned a lot in the media, and Joe Public is given the impression that everyone else is into it, then he or she will get into it too. Trends in music often follow this pattern.

*Isn't Twitter, in 2011, close to Facebook in terms of growth, as a percentage of users?*

Probably, like I said it is very big and sucessful. An objective analysis of it though leads me to wonder what its real advantages are - and I have read everything you and everyone else has to say on this post about its supposed advantages.

*The worst thing Twitter can do is give users the inbuilt capability of unlimited text per tweet. If every tweet in my timeline was 500 words long I just wouldn't have the time to read them all, which would mean following fewer people or just not bothering to check in at all.*

I doubt that would happen, many of the mesaages you would get would be short because that would be all the sender wanted to say at that time, some would be mid-length, some would be long. People would have the choice as to length, unlike on Twitter. People would most likely get updates from others that had real content, rather than a lot of the Twitter stuff about how "its raining outside", "my TV is making a crackling sound", "I'm taking the dog for a walk", "I need to buy some thicker socks because it's very cold now" - and loads of other pointless nonsense people send on Twitter.

*What you think are it's disadvantages compared to Facebook is it's real strengths. I know I'm not persuading you but maybe 250 million tweets per day might? Hmm? How about that, Max? *

I've never been a subscriber to the view that because something is massively sucessful it must have some kind of huge merit to it. I said earlier about the trends in music, and how clever marketing, and convincing everyone that because everybody else is (apparently) into this then you should be too, is often how things really take off. The internet is evolving all the time, new things come along, I wonder what the next one will be. First MySpace, then Facebook, then Twitter. Next it will be something that is the same (sending and receiving messages, posting photos, etc) but will be differnt somehow. And I can promise you the world will get into it because everyone will be talking about how it is 'the latest thing', how 'everyone is doing it', the TV news will tell us how 'all the celebrities are doing it' and so on.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]That is because you CAN HAVE more interaction on Facebook than on Twitter. Limited room on Twitter is all that's available. Regarding the usage, this is clever marketing, the thing has become huge, and everyone jumped on the bandwagon. Me included - in the sense that I use the thing but only, as I said earlier, when it is for conversing with someone who only has that as a means of contact. I sometimes just do a sentence or two, and I can fit that in one message, but sometimes I do more and have to submit numerous parts, like 1., 2., 3., etc - with abbreviations galour.[/quote]

I can only repeat what I've already said. If one wants to share something quickly, to a lot of people, but doesn't want to get involved in any drawn out discussions then the speed, simplicity and nature of Twitter appeals. I know I'm not always the most concise poster on bgafd but I really thought I'd explained this clearly enough for readers to absorb it. In summary, it's quick and easy without the social etiquette of Facebook.

As for this marketing business: I've never seen a single ad on TV, billboard or major website promoting Twitter. There is no marketing to speak of. It's popular because it's useful, not because we're all sheep that have been taken in by some clever marketing strategy.

[quote]But you might want to, you have the choice to, or you can buy the small thing. On Facebook I have sometimes responded with one word answers, sometimes with whole paragraphs.[/quote]

But to take away the choice appeals because with that choice goes expectation, as I've said. You're not expected to teach a goldfish manners, or remember a prostitute's mother's birthday. Exchange them for puppies and wives, however, and it's a different ball game. Etiquette is governed, in part, by the surroundings. Twitter takes away the social pressures of relationship building and upkeep. One could follow somebody on Twitter for years and learn next to nothing about that person's personality. This, as I keep trying to explain, appeals to many.

[quote]That's because it's all that is available. A telephone service where you can only talk for 30 seconds, rather than unlimted talk time (and say that thing becomes popular through clever mass marketing) would have people saying about it: "but I'm only bound to want to say a brief bit of monlouge to you, aren't I?"[/quote]

No, because a brief bit on monologue can be done via text. They have the choice. Your analogy is bad. If phones never had any other methods of communication then you'd be onto something. As I said in my other post, which you've declined a retort, people text friends much more than call them these days. And this was true before all these 'unlimited text bundles' became available so don't give me the cost excuse. Why would anyone text rather than call? Why would anyone use a chat client like google chat or msn when you can do much more via email? Why would anyone talk on Skype when nearly all of us have built-in webcams these days?

[quote]All that stuff may appear on someones Facebook page but someone who corresponds with someone on there doesn't get bombarded with it every time they want to exchange messages. It is there but they won't look at it every time. They just fire of a message, get one back, and so on. So it is the same as conversing on Twitter. Only, as I keep saying, you can do longer and more in-depth messages on Facebook if you desire, or keep it to a word or a sentence if desired.[/quote]

I can only repeat: I might not want to get into a longer discussion about how my knee felt after that hard run. Someone on Facebook might like to enquire further and so the social pressure is there, instantly. Should I go against my wishes and comply or let it be known I don't want to talk about it and hope this fellow doesn't get offended, or at least put-out a little? There's less chance of that on Twitter. I just say: "Knee finally feeling better after run today!" You either comment back: "Nice one, don't push it too hard!", or you don't say a thing. No one feels compelled interact any further, if at all.

[quote]If Stephen Fry has a Facebook page (he probably does) then someone will get updates about his life on there too. If Twitter had never happened, then Facebook would be the sole place for such info, and for sending and receiving mesages from him (if he chooses to reply to members of the public when they send him stuff).[/quote]

And why do you think Stephen Fry has chosen to communicate with the masses via Twitter rather than Facebook? Because he's a sheep?

[quote]Not sure I agree with that, one can be VERY into someone, or just vaguely into them, and send them a message via Facebook and get a reply. Also, if the person updates their Facebook page all the time with what they are up to, then their fans and followers get that instant update. Twitter is kind of 'cool', and this is clever marketing as I've said. I wonder if one day someone WILL invent a new kind of telehone where you can only talk for 30 seconds - it could be called 'chatbite', 'quick-chat' or something.[/quote]

I've given you my retort re the phone thing. Text is the answer to that one.

[quote]If someone takes a step back and really analysies, rather than just follow the cool trend that is the thing to be into, they would see that it is not as good. [/quote]

I suppose I could come back with, "If you took a step back and really analyses my replies to you, you may be better able to comprehend what I was conveying. To steal Bob Singleton's quip to me, a few days ago, using Twitter to have in-depth conversations is like using a hammer to bang in screws.

I'm not trying to get you to like Twitter, Max, I'm just explaining what some people may find appealing about it. I don't use Facebook at all, barring the odd conversation with a few people I'd like to keep in touch with, but I do see it's appeal to others. Just because I don't find it fandabbydozy it doesn't mean I don't realise it's useful to millions.

We can all assume you just don't 'get it'. That's fine. Just don't call all us that do 'get it' sheep.

And let's not forget this: Myspace has more functionality than Facebook (or at least it did when Facebook had already overtaken it years ago). People jumped from one social network, where you could have friends, a wall to post to, a blog, a photo album, upload and stream your own music, design your own pages etc, to a rip-off that made every page look the same and you couldn't upload your own songs/playlists etc. People said "why won't Facebook let me change the colour scheme from it's boring blue and white? It doesn't have half of what you can do on Myspace and so will never catch on!"

Except it did catch on. Quite well I hear. Could Facebook be deemed a 'poor man's Myspace', a 'Myspace ripoff', and can all Facebookers be labelled 'sheep that have fallen for a very clever marketing campaign.'? Or could it be because Myspace had got too complicated and bling? Could it be the simpler, slicker interface appealed to enough people that it forced others to join even if they didn't want to? You see, with social networks there's a critical mass it needs to achieve for it to become successful. Once it reaches that mass you are compelled to join in or be left out in the cold. We are a social animal and so it's no surprise that once a given amount of your friends and family join a network you'll also join...even if you don't want to. No one wants to be left alone (even virtually!).

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that 70%+ of Facebook users would leave Facebook if there was an alternative with the same funtionality. Twitter isn't an alternative to Facebook and doesn't want to be. Twitter is a different way of socialising and that is why most people will have both a Twitter and Facebook account at the same time. It's not an either/or option and they compliment eachother. A bit like how you can have texting and calling in a single communications device.

If you've read up to this point and still cannot comprehend how Twitter is useful in any way then I'd ask you to read my comments on this thread again...........and then again. If you're still at a loss then I give up and think you should be banned from all means of social interaction.

[max_tranmere]