121–130 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have a look at their Content Display Requirements (especially the section on "timeline integrity") https://dev.twitter.com/overview/terms/display-requirements
They mean you can't mix the timelines together into one timeline. That seems to make sense to me. If you have a twitter timeline (which is different than tweets being displayed), it can only be Twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that TVs are commodities compared to channels. They didn't want to commoditise their own business.
hah well all analogies break down if you peck at them long enough. Twitter should have enabled developers to create great things on their medium vs trying to be both the platform and the app creator.
I used to be on twitter. Left because nobody talks with you, just at you. And when you do actually get a conversation going, it's hard to follow when it's thrown in the same chronological time line with other conversations. The hashtag doesn't do much to foster conversation either. Merely a way to label slogans. This dichotomy between being a public feed but also being a place for conversations is at the core of why…
it's hard to follow when it's thrown in the same chronological time line with other conversations That, at least, shouldn't be the case. Your conversations live in the Notifications tab.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
hah well all analogies break down if you peck at them long enough. Twitter should have enabled developers to create great things on their medium vs trying to be both the platform and the app creator.
But the analogy doesn't break down. The value is in owning the medium. This is exactly why entities like comcast don't want to become dumb pipes. yes it is better for everyone if they do, but in their shorter term interest, it's much better to own the high value stuff.
Honest question: I've tried Twitter a bunch of times, tried to engage with it for a couple weeks, then given up when I felt that either the tweets were not curated enough for me or that nobody was listening to me. Is there some guide for technically literate people to start using Twitter effectively? Right now I use Feedly and blogs to serve this purpose, but the appeal of real time news a la Twitter seems quite swee…
Yes, please! From other peoples' descriptions, I can rationally understand what benefit Twitter brings them, but I have never been able to replicate that for myself. I have always walked away, convinced that it's a real-time medium that requires constant attention, because I find it to be nigh impossible to read up on any discussion ex post facto. That is especially true for any discussion with more than two particip…
YMMV, but I also think the emphasis on "conversations" is a bit misleading. Lots of people do have conversations on there, but I personally love it for breaking news, link-sharing, jokes, and photos. If your frame of reference is a forum with posts, or an article's comments, or a real-life conversation... you're going to have a bad time.
I used to be on twitter. Left because nobody talks with you, just at you. And when you do actually get a conversation going, it's hard to follow when it's thrown in the same chronological time line with other conversations. The hashtag doesn't do much to foster conversation either. Merely a way to label slogans. This dichotomy between being a public feed but also being a place for conversations is at the core of why…
Now, with the recent articles about Twitter's apps collecting the list of applications you have installed on your mobile, I tend to think that Twitter is as broken a concept as 'You can shout 140 characters - but no more - and people need to reply just as terse' sounds to your granddad. There's no way to justify the crazy limitations and the owner of the platform turns out to be another FB.
Next up: Real name policies on Twitter?
This might sound very weird in this day and age, but in my professional life (web developer), Twitter and G+ compete content-wise. And G+ wins easily. Disclaimer: I'm a very light Twitter user. I'm almost surely missing out on features I never bothered to discover. The main advantage G+ has in my eyes is its signal to noise ratio. It seems far better than Twitter's. Again, specifically in my professional world, quite…
The rest? Bullshit. G+ is a closed and broken platform, built by an advertisement company. It made lots of questionable decisions in the past (this very same person has a blocked G+ account - for real name policy violations - that, combined with the amazing Google customer support means that I will never ever be able to rate an app for my Android phone). There is _nothing_ good about G+.
Twitter sucks in various ways. But G+ is not better. Not at all. Unless we're really just talking 'character counts'. In all other ways? Worse, so. much. worse.
This might sound very weird in this day and age, but in my professional life (web developer), Twitter and G+ compete content-wise. And G+ wins easily. Disclaimer: I'm a very light Twitter user. I'm almost surely missing out on features I never bothered to discover. The main advantage G+ has in my eyes is its signal to noise ratio. It seems far better than Twitter's. Again, specifically in my professional world, quite…
Whereas some people I know have twitter and very few use it regularly, I have never even met someone who has a G+ and very few people I know would even recognize it as a social network over a simple rebranding of their gmail account.
If you want to give feedback, join the 'social network'.
(That's especially fun if applications, even 'paid' applications, try to 'encourage' you to rate in the Play Store. "Look, Yatse. I love what you are doing. But I CANNOT rate you. Firefox? You guys are my heroes. But I CANNOT rate you.".)
G+ is not a failed social network, it's no network and certainly not social. It's a constant slap in the face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true. Most of the recommendations are crap. Got any recommendations to finding high signal/noise users or lists ?
There are a few methods I've found for finding good lists. 1) Google with "site:twitter.com inurl:lists big data" Google's listings are decent indicator of higher quality lists. Substitute whichever topic you are interested in. 2) Look at your sources' memberships. If there's someone on twitter you follow closely for a topic, check out their memberships to see who has already listed them for that topic and that list…