Who's on Tweeter?

[Smiley]

Is it my man climb or wait a second, it has to be Boston Drunk or Roy Munson?
So are you tweeting and *** is that all about, a waste of bandwidth or what.

[Climb01742]

smile-man, you mean twitter? it's everything good and bad that's been said about it. there are some interesting research numbers coming out that don't bode well for it's long-term viability. that said, as a read-only way to ease-drop on some semi-interesting lives, it ain't half bad. but 99% of regular folks aren't cut out for twitter (including yours truly). but follow a guy named "sacca". dude is funny and smart.

[Smiley]

Thanks climb, been following a maryland womens head coach and find it kind of stupid. Thought of all people u in the ad busines would know the truths. Now if we can find out what Drunk and Muson are thinking that would be interesting :)

[1centaur]

Relatively few people can say a lot that's of interest in a few words on a frequent basis. And yet that would be the basis for the service's success - interesting, broadly appealing, frequent. Therefore the deal must work based on people who THINK they're interesting but are not, people who HOPE others are interesting but are disappointed, and people who ARE interesting but not often. That's a recipe for frequent disappointment and therefore failure.

There are those who think Twitter is a great new medium because it can be used to send links to bigger stories/messages to a self-selected narrowcast. Seems to me that this is a good concept but can hardly be constrained to Twitter so...thanks for the idea, buh bye.

That said, I actually like the idea of Lance tweeting during races. He actually does have interesting stuff to say (if he wants to say it) and most pro cyclists don't have a lot of time to compose great blog entries as they recover, theoretically. Perhaps the next level for Twitter should be instant thumbs up or thumbs down responses from receivers that then create "most popular" tweets both overall and within categories so that time-constrained general audiences can just subscribe to Top 10 lists. That somewhat solves both the interesting and frequency issues I outlined above. But here's what really bothers me about Twitter: the most likely producer of a great pithy observation is someone who thinks a lot about things and has developed insight from deep experience. Seems to me that's the antithesis of someone who would be inclined to tweet that thought.

[rugbysecondrow]

I don't tweet or twitter (however it is conjugated). I understand why somepeople do it as it makes them feel connected to others. As more and more famous people do it, it is suspected that few of them actually do it themselves (similar to them manning their own facebook page).

[zap]

snipped

So are you tweeting ...

No.

[ti_boi]

If you are on Twitter does that make you a twit? :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss

[Dude]

I'm on twitter (twitter.com/smellyalater, follow me because i'm badass) and its pretty cool. I read a really neat article about how twitter isn't about your posts, or even your friends posts. It is about the whole fabric that all of these posts weaves. No one is quirky/creative/interesting enough to command the internet in 140 characters or less (unless they command enough power outside the internet, like a D-bag such as ashton kutcher or Lance Armdouche).

But, when you take an overall, big picture of twitter, it's pretty interesting. See the "trending topics" on their website and you can see what is happening, literally that second. I'm able so hear about apple's WWDC in real time. I heard about the holocaust museum shooting before CNN had anything. Sure, i can contribute to that if i want to be an attention whore and make some inane "insightful" comment. But it's not about that for me.

Give it a chance, the article i mentioned earlier said how it took the author 1.5 years and 3 real chances before he understood what was cool about it. It took me about 6 months, i think it is "revolutionizes" the web because it isn't a typical website.