As I work on my Twitter case study (highlighting how different brands are leveraging the platform, tied to the 2 x2 I wrote about a little while ago), I’m becoming ever more intrigued by the different ways different people use the platform. With that on my mind, I found the difference between the messages in two articles I found today quite interesting.
The first is an article from the Globe called “Seriously Short Stories“, which highlights how a variety of authors are trying to develop a knack for micro-stories – those told based on the limits of Twitter (i.e. 140 characters at a time). The second is a post from Shel Holtz, which talks about Twitter as a gateway to substantive content – focusing on tweets that link to some greater content (blog posts, videos, etc.). These are two very different mindsets.
So in the first case, some writers are fundamentally changing how they communicate with their audience. As Clare Bell says in the article:
“The trick is to get the entries so they fit into the Twitter format, so they’re not choppy and they draw the reader into the next one. There’s also much more of a focus on clarity since these posts are going to be separated in time.”
Indeed, that is quite a trick. And while I guess I can see how some people might find the approach quite interesting, I personally don’t like it at all. I’m way, way more into the Twitter as a gateway to substantive content model. In fact, that’s how I found Shel’s post – through a re-tweet from Mathew Ingram, one of my preferred gateways.
In fact, I’ve found myself changing my twitter activity based on this perspective. Like many people (even if they care not to admit it), I can find myself getting caught up in gross follower / following counts. But recently I’ve started culling my following list on regular basis, and my primary filter is whether the individual’s tweets tend to be a gateway to substantive content (i.e. links to stories of interest to me), or 140 character messages about their thoughts, activities, etc. (which I almost always find useless and/or annoying). And as I become more “ruthless” in cutting people, I’m finding that the value I get from the platform grows substantially, as more and more noise drifts away.
Of course, that’s just me – and one of the great things about Twitter is that you can choose to engage with the platform any way you want. But what I’m personally hoping for is that less great writers/ authors /thinkers try to alter their craft to fit their stories into 140 character chip shots, and more use it to point me towards their well-articulated, well thought out arguments / stories.
I’m also wondering if there is some way that I can filter messages from particular individuals so I get only their links to more substantive content. One of my biggest struggles on Twitter right now is figuring out what to do with a collection of people I follow who regularly point me towards some interesting stuff, but tend to surround it in the noise of tens or hundreds of @replies, “thanks!”, etc. messages that drive me nuts…
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
So the thing about Twitter and their growth is that third parties are filling the gaps that they as a company don’t have the means to fill.
Your “gap” is filled by services such as microplaza.com and twitturly.com.
It’s still an immature medium and finding these folks is part of the game of making it work the way you think it should.
It still a bit scary that this ecology of search services is so random and dependent on an immature API and service — there are no guarantees that such companies will be able to rely on the current feeds in the future. But what the heck – its fun to be on th ecutting edge.
David – thanks for the comment. So are you saying on one of those platforms I can filter messages so I only see the ones that (say) link to external content?
I just tried Twitturly (the MyTop100), and it tells me there were no links found in the last week – so something doesn’t seem to be working. Could be user error though… it’s been known to happen
.
Hi Denis,
I’d just like to add something that the Globe and Mail article didn’t say, and that is that most of the Twitter novelette story posts are accompanied by “#rathalink” posts, which give more information about the creatures in the story, since many are based on existing fossils. They also link to my published books.
in this Twitter experiment, I’m trying to combine story entertainment with portals to information on paleontology.
Thanks for commenting on the idea.
Thanks Clare – excellent point. I probably jumped too quickly to the angle of distinguishing between the two mindsets (and using a quote specific to the short-story mindset), without providing the context that for many people (like yourself) the tweets are used in support of more substantive content.
And of course, just because this one aspect of the approach is not my cup of tea doesn’t mean it isn’t great for many people… such is the great thing about Twitter, social media, etc.