FTO'ers on Twitter?

[mikesathome]

I presume the latter part of this thread is an example of the informative dialogue found on Twitter. :lol:

No. Twitter is far more banal and less informative.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/215542

From that article
"But most of what streams across Twitter is junk. One recent study concluded that 40 percent of the messages are "pointless babble.""
how is that any different than the whole internet itself?
:dead horse:

 

[Marc_C]

From that article
"But most of what streams across Twitter is junk. One recent study concluded that 40 percent of the messages are "pointless babble.""
how is that any different than the whole internet itself?

Do you mean 40% of the messages or 40% of the total content on the net is "pointless babble"? In either case, if you're suggesting that 40% is pointless, you're looking at an extremely tiny portion of internet traffic/content.

 

[mikesathome]

From that article
"But most of what streams across Twitter is junk. One recent study concluded that 40 percent of the messages are "pointless babble.""
how is that any different than the whole internet itself?

Do you mean 40% of the messages or 40% of the total content on the net is "pointless babble"? In either case, if you're suggesting that 40% is pointless, you're looking at an extremely tiny portion of internet traffic/content.

Not sure what you meant by internet traffic, but as for content I would say close to 40% is worthless, by being old content, old news, worthless search redirection sites, endless video sites of funny cats and baby laughs.
Now that i think of it, I guess it's really what YOU are trying to get out of the internet to consider how much of it is worthless.
Some people might think pron is unless, or ski forms of people debating snow conditions (those people are nuts we know)

Anywho, time for some UofM OT Football!

 

[Marc_C]

From that article
"But most of what streams across Twitter is junk. One recent study concluded that 40 percent of the messages are "pointless babble.""
how is that any different than the whole internet itself?

Do you mean 40% of the messages or 40% of the total content on the net is "pointless babble"? In either case, if you're suggesting that 40% is pointless, you're looking at an extremely tiny portion of internet traffic/content.

Not sure what you meant by internet traffic, but as for content I would say close to 40% is worthless, by being old content, old news, worthless search redirection sites, endless video sites of funny cats and baby laughs.

I wasn't sure 'cause I wasn't exactly sure what you were referring to! Messages - email or discussion posts? Lots of different terms with lots of different meanings depending on context. What I'm suggesting is that the content that you list actually constitutes a relatively small part of the net. Look instead at the business uses, communication, collaboration, and information storage uses/possibilities. Three quick and very small examples: taxes, distance collaboration, information storage/access.

* Look at the millions of Americans who filed federal and state taxes electronically, the number who did their entire filing on-line, and the millions of others who looked up information.

* Earlier this week I was in a UI design review with the development team who would be doing the coding. I and a few of my colleagues were in a conference room in Draper, one of our developers was in our small Layton office (~50 miles away), a product manager in Wanship, UT (a different ~50 miles away), and our contract developers in Bangalore, India. It was done live via shared screens and virtual whiteboard over the net. (But the Indian guys were kinda tired - it was pretty late for them.)

*Sun Computing has all of their product catalog and manuals on-line on their web site. It amounts to several million pages of content.

Sure, there's a lot of crap on Youtube. There's a lot of excellent content as well. But to say that 40% of all the content on the net is pointless based on what you've seen on the sites you've visited is rather disingenuous imo. It's analogous to Plato arguing against writing because that non-verbal form disconnects us as humans from our thoughts and passions. (The obvious irony of us knowing this precisely because Plato chose to write it down I'm sure did not cross his mind.) Or Samuel Morse railing against the telephone because there would be no written record of the conversation.
Oh, "old news" is vitally important for research, btw. And I kinda like funny cats.

Now that i think of it, I guess it's really what YOU are trying to get out of the internet to consider how much of it is worthless.

Precisely. Most if not all your email is worthless to me, and vice versa.

 

[Admin]

MC, you're speaking as someone who's never used it. That's like someone who says that Midway is suburban hell, but who's never been there.

Sure, I'm certain that lots of Twitter is useless babble, but I don't follow those folks. It's proven very useful from a business perspective for me.

 

[Marc_C]

MC, you're speaking as someone who's never used it. That's like someone who says that Midway is suburban hell, but who's never been there.
Sure, I'm certain that lots of Twitter is useless babble, but I don't follow those folks. It's proven very useful from a business perspective for me.

Actually, I have (you do know I get paid to understand this web stuff, right?!) - from the reader/follower side, not as a content producer. I found it incredibly annoying. I like my friends and want to hear what they say. I find quite a few folks interesting and want to hear their ideas and thoughts (I want some employer to send me to TED one of these years). That's why I read blogs and trade emails and engage in net discussion fora.

I most definitely don't want that exchange of ideas or info delivered as 140 char snippets of partial thoughts suitable only for those with ADD. Nor do I want a constant stream of these snippets. Most people can't even manage a short, coherent daily blog post - why would I want to know their life from second to second? If I want a conversation, there's IM and the phone.

Twitter is just another way for the desperate to say "HEY! Lookie me!". In times past, those folks would simply hurl themselves off a tall building. How many kittens have given up their lives because of Twitter? Twitter - such an apt name. Google <twitter sucks> and you get over 20 million hits. Is it useful for people promoting services they provide? Probably, but how is that different than spam? Do I care where you're going for lunch? If you are doing an activity that allows you to tweet during the course of that activity, then, honestly, are you that engaged in it?

I'm curious how Twitter has "...proven very useful from a business perspective...". More so than other forms of communication? Did it supplant an email or IM exchange? Were you using it as an IM substitute?

How long before paid ads are on Twit, or they start charging for messages, perhaps via a premium version while putting a message limit on the free version?

 

[jamesdeluxe]

As a rule, I wait five years before adopting any new technology (finally got an MP3 a year ago!); then I can properly decide how useful/useless it is... and of course, by that time, it's been supplanted by another novelty. The only thing that I instantly started using was IM.

I'm too unmotivated to find out how Twitter works, other than the 140-character rule, but I am also curious to learn its myriad business applications. :-k

 

[Admin]

Just for starters, a good half-dozen story leads have come via Twitter -- and no other method -- just in the past week.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

Just for starters, a good half-dozen story leads have come via Twitter -- and no other method -- just in the past week.

OK, I wasn't thinking... it makes sense that Twitter would be helpful as a news-gathering application, and there are probably many other uses that would become clear if I had more of an entrepreneurial streak.

Maybe I'm just annoyed by the name -- it really does sound like something you'd do in a sun dress.

 

[Marc_C]

Maybe I'm just annoyed by the name -- it really does sound like something you'd do in a sun dress.

Thank you so much for the imagery of Guido in a sun dress. :shock: #-o

 

[Harvey]

OK, I wasn't thinking... it makes sense that Twitter would be helpful as a news-gathering application, and there are probably many other uses that would become clear if I had more of an entrepreneurial streak.

Our hotel clients are pushing out promos/offers to all of their "fans" (customers) and doing pretty well with it.

 

[Admin]

No use for Twitter? Well, let's see...just today it was the first way I heard of Mammoth opening Friday -- even before Mammoth's own website -- and Sunday River opening. And besides, where else could I get into a pissing match with Edwin Land over the senseless rebirth of the Polaroid? (Let's just say that Polaroid won't be buying advertising here anytime soon...)

 

[Marc_C]

That's a very specific use of Twitter, which I don't disagree with. But it represents a minuscule fraction of Twitter traffic, and will likely vanish when Twitter becomes a pay service. Consider that Mylie Cyrus had millions of followers, who then twittered about whatever she twitted about.

In contrast, a few hundred, if that, learned about Mammoth opening a few hours before they posted it on their web site.
Wow.
They must have generated an extra $40 in profit!!!

Edit: Oh, just saw the update in the Western forum. Free lift tickets. Guess they ate that $40.

 

[Admin]

But it represents a minuscule fraction of Twitter traffic

Which is no different than that of Internet traffic as a whole. It's all in how you use it.

 

[Harvey]

But it represents a minuscule fraction of Twitter traffic

Which is no different than that of Internet traffic as a whole. It's all in how you use it.

Or any form of communication. Or any tool. You can use a shovel to grow food or kill a man.