-
Website
http://www.mathewingram.com/work -
Original page
http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/12/no-one-actually-follows-2000-people/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
scrawledinwax
23 comments · 1 points
-
webomatica
35 comments · 5 points
-
howardlindzon
46 comments · 69 points
-
JoeDuck
57 comments · 1 points
-
Karoli
32 comments · 39 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
In defence of newspapers and serendipity
2 weeks ago · 43 comments
-
Are independent bloggers an endangered species?
2 weeks ago · 7 comments
-
Bloggers, trust, MSM and correction fluid
1 week ago · 1 comment
-
Video: My panel with Shirky and Keen
4 weeks ago · 2 comments
-
Why media outlets want Facebook Connect
2 weeks ago · 1 comment
-
In defence of newspapers and serendipity
and @gangles - interesting point. I hadn't thought of that!
Services like hashtags are already getting screwed by the API limitations, so it's pretty clear here that Twitter isn't concerned with a lot of the effects on third party tools.
means they are more social-media aware than others, even though it's
impossible to be part of a "conversation" with thousands of people --
at least not in any real meaning of the term.
The tough thing is Twitter is completely useless when you first get started (no followers and it's hard to know who to follow) and quickly becomes useless again when you're following lots of people. I don't think this latest change will do anything to make it really useful for normal people.
(normal) People don't know how to get followers or how to respond to people they're following but who aren't following them. To them it's just useless noise to most people except the same people over and over who like to hear themselves talk.
As to Gibbon's point -- I don't think Twitter is something you'd want to sign on to on its own. If you are person who already has followers -- and I don't mean on Twitter, I mean regular consumers of the media you produce -- then Twitter is a useful tool to offer them. So there shouldn't be a 'useless' period when used properly -- you should sign on because you have someone to follow or you have people following you already. If you're following too many people you're defeating the purpose of the tool again.
I could see Twitter being useful for normal people in the following capacities:
- Weather updates
- Sports updates (favourite teams only)
- Update notices for favourite websites that don't update on a regular schedule
- Celebrity updates (favourite celebs only)
This of course would also require the media producers to want to use Twitter appropriately. I don't want an update that it's going to be a bright sunny day on my phone, but "Severe Thunderstorm" or "Tornado Watch" most definitely. For sports, I actually wouldn't mind play-by-play tweets -- not to my phone, but Twitterfox; a little pop-up in the lower right corner to let me know what's going on. I don't care about celebrities but there are a few websites I enjoy that are updated sporadically -- but once again, not to my phone.
So I think it's just a matter of another tool not being used for the job it was meant for.
But I agree with your basic point, particularly with Twitter's search capabilities through Summize: If you were following 5,000 people you were probably filtering that output somehow to make sense for it, and you can just as easily filter with Summize or something similar.
A.
I've been using it since Mesh 2008 and see value in following about 30-40 people that are relevant to my business (You, Kedrosky, Evans, etc.) but shoot me if I follow 200 people, let alone 2,000.
Still too much emphasis on "cool" and not enough on utility in the Web 2.0 world.
George
I don't know what all the fuss is about,as said before,how many people really follow 2,000 people.
Just putting your name on a list and say you are following someone,does anyone seriously thinks that people really do?
I know for a fact i don't.
I wish people would grow up and tell the truth!!!.