Comments on: Twitter: What is it Good For? http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/12/15/twitter-what-is-it-good-for/ As relevant as Eric Fischl. New York art news, reviews and gossip. Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:07:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: David http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/12/15/twitter-what-is-it-good-for/comment-page-1/#comment-121718 David Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:43:53 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/12/15/twitter-what-is-it-good-for/#comment-121718 I've never been able to commit to a full blog, seems like a real job. But Twitter is so wonderfully easy -- even on my phone, that I've taken to it. I also love the 140 character limit. Inspires poetic brevity, or at least brevity. I’ve never been able to commit to a full blog, seems like a real job. But Twitter is so wonderfully easy — even on my phone, that I’ve taken to it. I also love the 140 character limit. Inspires poetic brevity, or at least brevity.

]]> By: Art Fag City http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/12/15/twitter-what-is-it-good-for/comment-page-1/#comment-121244 Art Fag City Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:53:52 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/12/15/twitter-what-is-it-good-for/#comment-121244 I think part of the allure of twitter is that at least for now, it does encourage some mixing of the personal and the professional. Emily Gould wrote about how Jessica Cohen noted the minute she posted anything remotely personal on Gawker people clung to it. I wonder whether this kind of interest is indicative of readers who desperate for distraction, or if its merely a cultural trend bloggers exploit as a strategy to engage readers. I think part of the allure of twitter is that at least for now, it does encourage some mixing of the personal and the professional. Emily Gould wrote about how Jessica Cohen noted the minute she posted anything remotely personal on Gawker people clung to it. I wonder whether this kind of interest is indicative of readers who desperate for distraction, or if its merely a cultural trend bloggers exploit as a strategy to engage readers.

]]> By: Brian Sherwin @ Myartspace Blog http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/12/15/twitter-what-is-it-good-for/comment-page-1/#comment-121142 Brian Sherwin @ Myartspace Blog Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:50:20 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/12/15/twitter-what-is-it-good-for/#comment-121142 I have not signed up for Twitter. Facebook hates me. :) I've come to the conclusion that Facebook is not the best site for social networking because they tend to wave the ban hammer if they confuse you for a bot. I have not signed up for Twitter. Facebook hates me. :) I’ve come to the conclusion that Facebook is not the best site for social networking because they tend to wave the ban hammer if they confuse you for a bot.

]]> By: Sharon http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/12/15/twitter-what-is-it-good-for/comment-page-1/#comment-121127 Sharon Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:48:18 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/12/15/twitter-what-is-it-good-for/#comment-121127 Paddy, I feel ambivalent about Twitter, too. Following museums results in 140-character non-stop incoming press releases. Or they tweet events (ie Getty Museum's non-stop Robert Irwin tweet-fest yesterday. Oy. Get a blog!) What's the point of impersonal corporate tweets? Twitter is good for mobile and one-line blog updates, or emergency notifications (thanks Joy for pointing this out) but overall it's dumbing down the discourse. Facebook is a better choice for keeping your friends in the loop. --Sharon Paddy,
I feel ambivalent about Twitter, too. Following museums results in 140-character non-stop incoming press releases. Or they tweet events (ie Getty Museum’s non-stop Robert Irwin tweet-fest yesterday. Oy. Get a blog!) What’s the point of impersonal corporate tweets? Twitter is good for mobile and one-line blog updates, or emergency notifications (thanks Joy for pointing this out) but overall it’s dumbing down the discourse. Facebook is a better choice for keeping your friends in the loop.
–Sharon

]]> By: Art Fag City http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/12/15/twitter-what-is-it-good-for/comment-page-1/#comment-121094 Art Fag City Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:24:53 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/12/15/twitter-what-is-it-good-for/#comment-121094 I think it's pretty unlikely that comments like "Ridonkulously silly" will be able to be maintained long term. The more followers you have the less likely you are to make those kinds of statements even if you think them. I would say it's more likely you'll receive a certain kind of feedback via twitter as opposed to engagement as a whole: a short pithy statement as opposed the longer comments you get on a blog. To be honest, I get more feedback from facebook though (twitter updates my status) than I do via twitter. In any event, each feedback form serves it's own purpose. Overall I think you're right to point out that people are more engaging more with twitter now and that is having an effect on blogs. As someone who benefits financially from ads from time to time, I find this a bit frustrating because there's no way for me to recoup the investment I put into twitter whereas at least I have the ability to place ads on my blog. I suppose if I were making a bit more money I wouldn't be bothered by this as much, but an unfortunate reality of being an internet professional is that I have to consider how to monetize at least some of my time. I think it’s pretty unlikely that comments like “Ridonkulously silly” will be able to be maintained long term. The more followers you have the less likely you are to make those kinds of statements even if you think them.

I would say it’s more likely you’ll receive a certain kind of feedback via twitter as opposed to engagement as a whole: a short pithy statement as opposed the longer comments you get on a blog. To be honest, I get more feedback from facebook though (twitter updates my status) than I do via twitter.

In any event, each feedback form serves it’s own purpose. Overall I think you’re right to point out that people are more engaging more with twitter now and that is having an effect on blogs. As someone who benefits financially from ads from time to time, I find this a bit frustrating because there’s no way for me to recoup the investment I put into twitter whereas at least I have the ability to place ads on my blog. I suppose if I were making a bit more money I wouldn’t be bothered by this as much, but an unfortunate reality of being an internet professional is that I have to consider how to monetize at least some of my time.

]]> By: Heather R. http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/12/15/twitter-what-is-it-good-for/comment-page-1/#comment-121089 Heather R. Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:09:47 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2008/12/15/twitter-what-is-it-good-for/#comment-121089 Oh what a time to be linking to my stream. That conversation began from on observation that there's a similarity between Twitter and LiveJournal: somehow, both compel you to write in a form that is embarrassing in retrospect. The character limit is a nice constraint. I've seen a few writing sites recommend it as a way to discover your paper's thesis statement. But there's something about the overall quality of updates in the community, and the excited responses that even the most mundane updates generate, that encourages a level of language and conversation below what I would use on my blog. To me, my blog is more of a "public face" than Twitter, which now largely serves as a monologue to an imagined audience of five people, while the other 300-something suffer in silence. Tyler Green likely wouldn't have written <a href="http://twitter.com/TylerGreenDC/status/1055695137" rel="nofollow">"ridonkulously silly"</a> in many contexts other than Twitter. And that's great. We need a space where we have the freedom to speak that way, without the anxiety of identity that an established blog can sometimes induce. I've considered Twittercide once or twice, but I stick around because I appreciate the flexibility it provides and the feedback it generates. The level of engagement on blogs is decreasing. It's now more likely that you'll receive feedback through Twitter than through your blog -- though some services like Intense Debate and Disqus are working to change that. (Disclosure: I work for Automattic, which recently acquired Intense Debate.) If the price for eliciting that interaction is short-term embarrassment because I updated the world about the effect of Mint Milanos on the circumference of my ass, so be it. Oh what a time to be linking to my stream.

That conversation began from on observation that there’s a similarity between Twitter and LiveJournal: somehow, both compel you to write in a form that is embarrassing in retrospect.

The character limit is a nice constraint. I’ve seen a few writing sites recommend it as a way to discover your paper’s thesis statement.

But there’s something about the overall quality of updates in the community, and the excited responses that even the most mundane updates generate, that encourages a level of language and conversation below what I would use on my blog. To me, my blog is more of a “public face” than Twitter, which now largely serves as a monologue to an imagined audience of five people, while the other 300-something suffer in silence.

Tyler Green likely wouldn’t have written “ridonkulously silly” in many contexts other than Twitter. And that’s great. We need a space where we have the freedom to speak that way, without the anxiety of identity that an established blog can sometimes induce.

I’ve considered Twittercide once or twice, but I stick around because I appreciate the flexibility it provides and the feedback it generates.

The level of engagement on blogs is decreasing. It’s now more likely that you’ll receive feedback through Twitter than through your blog — though some services like Intense Debate and Disqus are working to change that. (Disclosure: I work for Automattic, which recently acquired Intense Debate.)

If the price for eliciting that interaction is short-term embarrassment because I updated the world about the effect of Mint Milanos on the circumference of my ass, so be it.

]]>