egafd.com

I know we've discussed Twitter on here before, but as someone who has been Tweeting a bit recently I have to say that I find the whole experience annoying and regard Twitter as little more than a poor man's Facebook. What does it do that Facebook doesn't do? Nothing, except you can do less of it on Twitter. Facebook has unlimited room for text when you are writing a message, Twitter has very limited space and you spend more time trying to shorten everything so you can send it than you do originally writing the message. "What have you been doing today?" becomes "wot u bin doing 2day?" because of the totally pointless decision by the people behind Twitter to give you very limited room for text.

On Facebook you can make it as long as you want, and put up as many photos as you want. Some people put dozens, some put hundreds. On Twitter there is the profile pic and then you have to attach a Twitpic (clever name!) to your message. Anyone comparing Twitter and Facebook, who had never heard of them before and had no idea which came along first, would (I am certain) think that Twitter is from 10 years ago and Facebook is from now. It's like comparing what a mobile phone from 10-15 years ago did compared to what the modern ones do today. Why has Twitter taken off? It's crap. But I suppose people are just sheep and follow whatever trend is current. Right, rant over.

Twatter would be a better name.

As Robert Browning wrote, 'Less is more'.

Its nothing more than a marketing tool to raise awareness of your other existing websites & blogs

Thats been buried under Celebrities using it to post a lot of nonsense simply to raise their profile while not wasting a lot of their time

About the only time I've seen it be used where it served a purpose that wasnt marketing were a few news stories where the mainstream media didnt have access.

It's good for chatting (very briefly) to people you are fans of, but that's it. Facebook is even better as you can see lots of their photos and send more words, and they can send a longer reply, but I find I get more replies from people I'm fans of on Twitter. Probably because, for some reason, Tweeting is the cool thing to do at the moment so people keep more up on their Twitter account than they do on Facebook.

Hiya

An American market-research firm Pear Analytics analyzed 2,000 tweets (originating from the US and in English) over a two-week period in August 2009 from 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM (CST) and separated them into six categories:[60]

Pointless babble ? 40%
Conversational ? 38%
Pass-along value ? 9%
Self-promotion ? 6%
Spam ? 4%
News ? 4%

I went to Tesco, really busy. Got some great pineapples really cheap. I am watching television now. Those Sherlock repeats are great. Why is tele so poor in summer. Feeling tired, so I went to bed early. Didn't have a crap today. Got up late...zzzzzzzzzz.

Cheers
D

As I said last time it is only crap for you.

Have to say Max if it annoys you that much the best solution is to stop using the bloody thing!

Deuce Bigolo wrote:

> About the only time I've seen it be used where it served a
> purpose that wasnt marketing were a few news stories where the
> mainstream media didnt have access.

I use it mainly to follow my non-league football teams scores for games I can't get to. It's like having my own personal vidiprinter, giving me live information I can't get anywhere else.

Just a quick, no nonsense "1-0, Ward, penalty" is worth its weight in gold.

But yes, it's mostly inane babble, so just don't follow the babblers such as Rio Ferdinand, who seems to need to announce to the world every time he needs a dump.