chrisbrogan.com - Latest Comments in Twitter Needs Two Channels

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Jeff Copeland — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:55:58 -0000

I agree wholeheartedly. To me, Twitter is just a bunch of noise. But give me some filters to put in place so that I only get what I want/need to see, and then it becomes a viable communications platform.

Filters. Not Features.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

yuregininsesi — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:44:40 -0000

Chris, the biggest issue I see with this is that the sender gets to decide what is of importance or value, when that actually varies from recipient to recipient. As you noted, some of your "commons" tweets can spark voluminous discussion. Would you have thought that an offhand remark could be of importance or value? This ambiguity makes the distinctions too complex to be appealing.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Joel Drapper — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:59:23 -0000

I was just talking to a friend about this the other day. I hope they do bring out this feature.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Jack Repenning — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:49:16 -0000

@susan kuhn frost (et al): there are a couple sites that will reconstruct a thread for you. one is tweader.com. copy the permalink for the tweet, or just the number at its end (the "status ID"), and paste at http://tweader.com

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

susan kuhn frost — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:07:38 -0000

Christy, the only work-around I have seen to follow a conversation is this: select a word string in the tweet that intrigues you and then search for it at http://search.twitter.com, the search menu at the bottom of the screen. One of the options in the results will be "show coversation." That will take you back through the tweets between those two people.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Christy — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:13:51 -0000

It's an interesting idea, but I feel that it removes the "social" aspect of social media. If I only want to know what noteworthy things you have to say, I read your blog. Twitter is all about those connections you make around the non-noteworthy things. Enjoying the same type of coffee, sharing a birthday, having similar experiences with family members - these are how personal relationships are built. It's one of the reasons I don't aspire to following as many people as you do. I can't imagine trying to follow the massive brain dump you have access to! It's like being able to hear what everyone is thinking and trying to sort out what you want/need to know.

As others have mentioned, there's the additional problem of defining what is a "common" and what is a "platform" tweet. I can't imagine it would be all that useful a breakdown in the end, especially with thousands of streams coming in.

The only change I'd make to Twitter is the ability to thread tweets. I am forever searching backward to find out what inspired an interesting response!

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Snow Vandemore — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:22:08 -0000

To quote Winston Churchill -- "“The simplest things are often the truest.”

The human brain is an amazing tool in that we can take in an inordinate amount of information at a brief glance and determine what is pertinent to our lives and what is not. We already have two, four, six channels -- as many as a relatively intelligent person can manage -- simply by thinking, then choosing. I don't want an application making those decisions for me. I might be missing something that later proves to be a diamond, a gem, in a stream of muck.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Sopan Greene — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:51:45 -0000

When I read the title and began to read this article I agreed with you Chris, but the more I look at how I get value on Twitter I have to support the one channel option. The blending of the commons and the informative data is the secret sauce for Twitter.

We have access to real time national and international conversations, benefit from crowd sourcing and connect deeper to experts like you by reading tweets about people's kids, joys, frustrations and at times irrelevant musings. Every time we read a tweet that makes us smile or laugh we're further endeared to our Twitter friends and deriving more value from the medium.

Besides, having two channels would add yet another channel to monitor in our information overwhelm / time deprived lives. It would be one more thing we'd be wishing could be aggregated.

@sopan

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Snow Vandemore — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:47:10 -0000

I made a comment to one of my followers this morning about Twittergroups. I said the site looked cheesy and personally, I didn't see the point. I like twitter for it's diversity -- I don't want to be grouped with a bunch of other people who think, or think they think, like me. I want to share and converse with people who are not like me. That's how I learn and that's exciting to me.

Too many api's spoils the bunch -- in that respect, I agree with you. Twitter is a phenomenon unto itself. Piling on different applications and spins just complicates the essence of what is great about the original product. Sequels and remakes, like Die Hard 2, are never as good as the real thing. Twitter is twitter. Tomorrow, it will be something like twitter, but better. But that's for you social media geniuses to figure out. I'll just be along for the ride. :)

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Kenneth Darryl Brown — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:07:56 -0000

Chris, nice post! As a sales expert, I use Twitter to learn more about sales, marketing, profitability, entrepreneurship, social media, technology, etc. ...... I am looking for information that will improve my business! Likewise, when I discover great content and information, I share it with my Twitter Followers. I skip over the "personal stuff" .... just sharing! :) Thank you!

@KenE3C

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Hustlers Home — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:01:32 -0000

I'm more about business. I need to build my twitter that is my next goal. I want a personal twitter.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Charles LeRette — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:29:29 -0000

Wouldn't most of us still want to see both the Commons and the Platform posts for the people we follow? Assuming we follow people that have something interesting to say and don't just tweet what they had for dinner. I follow you, for example. I like most of the things you have to say whether they're important or trivial. So, how would you system make it any different for me? Other than making me look in two places for your tweets.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

chronically — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 01:13:35 -0000

i'd imagine they're working on this. in only a few lines of code I setup a filter that runs in the background and displays only tweets from the people I'm following that contain links. I figure that the people I follow are linking to something of value rather than lengthy blog entries about their day.

It takes a little bit of understanding of the api, but it's real simple to do with a little programming knowledge and is even a little fun.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Jeff Cutler — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:41:53 -0000

I think it's a bit complicated, but could also prove to be a valuable distinction. Mike Langford (@mikelangford) has created tweetworks to allow people to meet in groups to discuss stuff in more depth with people who want to focus on messages on a particular topic. I'm not sure this is exactly what Chris is looking for, but it's a start.

There are going to be bumps because everyone uses tools differently. Even the common hammer is held differently by many people - except maybe the pro carpenters. So until everyone on Twitter is a pro (and that ain't happening anytime soon) it will still lack some functionality.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

compassioninpolitics — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:07:59 -0000

Absolutely Mr. Brogan,

Very much agreed. It would be nice if the commons were divided someway so that trolls would have less of an impact and conversations could be more focused. Some degree of commonality helps breed discussion and trust. (I guess this is like the friendfeed rooms, but more used because people live on twitter these days.

Cheers,
Nathan

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

thirstforwine — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:51:32 -0000

I have wimped out of reading all comments, so apologies if already stated, but why have two areas? Eventually distinctions would be blurred as people used the most popular to get noticed, whether relevant or not.

I suggest looking at the clients which should allow you to filter out replies from messages on a per user basis (not on a universal basis as at the moment). You can follow those replies from only those you want to follow, but still see what you call 'platform' tweets from everyone.

[this does imply @messages are of lower value than broadcast ones, but in general that is true]

If you see a message that is interesting, you tag it in your client and it starts showing that users replies, and those sent to them (for a period of time).

This would not involve any changes to twitter itself, only the way you read it.

Does that make sense and address your issue?

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Gab Goldenberg — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:14:58 -0000

Oh I get it now. I like the platform metaphor :). Just hadn't gotten it at first cuz I thought it was platform in the software sense.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

kathy — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:40:53 -0000

And I need to add - some of what would be considered "common" in your scenario is to me and I think my customers, platform material. Yes, it may be silliness, but it's my customers getting to know me on a personal level - to see that I'm a real person and build the relationship. I just lost a follower and it's probably because I'm tweeting about yarns and trading yarn for one of my followers yummy sounding dinners, etc., which to someone outside my world seems inane, but to me and my business, it's making me real, it's having fun, it's building relationships and conversations and all that stuff and it's working.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Lord Matt — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:52:12 -0000

You are talking some seriously fuzzy boarder. The thing is what happens when I want ch#3 or ch#9999? While saying there are two distinct types of tweet and we can name them if you can not say Type A follows pattern A and type B follows pattern B you can not teach a system to recognise them.That makes them subjective (like tags or as you advocate) categories/folders (very "web 1.0").

Many moons ago when blogging was young and new bloggers saw that there were different types of blog. Should they be separated defined or should they remain in the collective? What you have done is recognised two uses of twitter now can a clever person create a personal Bayesian filter (exactly what we use to teach spam filters) to separate them on your twitter platform of choice?

That's what really needs to happen.

You could filter as you desire and I could filter for interesting / not interesting.

Whoever writes this twitter app' is going to get attention.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

kathy — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:05:59 -0000

At first pass this seems to make sense. But, what happens when my platform content isn't considered such by somebody else who follows me? Not all of my followers care that I'm offering free shipping this week, but for those that do, it definitely would be platform content.

As someone who's still trying to figure this all out, I'm working hard on developing valuable content - having to then categorize is just one more step. Your example is clear and I get what you're trying to accomplish. I just don't think in all instances it's all so black & white.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Jack Repenning — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:51:08 -0000

Maybe a better structure would be a UI control that flips between "commons of my follows," "platform of my follows" and "both". Exact details would be a fun place for client developers to play.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Rebecca — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:38:00 -0000

I didn't read all these comments, but I love Dave Atkins' comment and agree. What you're defining as the commons and platform can't exist in silos. Each is strong because of each other not in spite of it. They play off each other.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Susan Kuhn Frost — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:50:16 -0000

There is a delicate balance here between improving functionality/reducing noise AND wanting twitter to be all things to all people. Text messaging is a better platform for emergencies like VA tech. But within the simplicity of twitter there is a lot that could be done. For example, what if each home page had a space on it for emergency announcements from Twitter, e.g., Mumbai bombed, follow #mumbai. Or just a scroll of trending topics? The filter, I believe, should be located DOWNSTREAM and not as part of the API as you advocate. That way it is driven by demand and is changeable as twitter evolves, not "hardwired" into its core.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Ed — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:22:00 -0000

@51 Um, they didn't steal anything.
They built it with their own money and hours.
They even let hyperbolic critics play for free.

Re: Twitter Needs Two Channels

Craig — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:08:29 -0000

I agree with you that there should be some type of "E" function that highlights a situation. For example, after the Virginia Tech attacks, I know every other school wanted to set up some type of system where students in real time would find out specific emergency information and what to do. Twitter could be perfect for this type of situation, and some type of E would help. The only problem I can forsee is "the boy who cried wolf" scenario. Hopefully people would be respectful enough not to overuse it, but it could be and cause more annoyance than good for others.

Craig
www.budgetpulse.com