Twitter Ain't Search
marksonland.com
Twitter Ain't Search
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: Twitter Ain't Search
#2Has this guy heard of search.twitter.com?
Re: Twitter Ain't Search
#3Has this guy heard of search.twitter.com?
Is their search anything more than finding text in a tweet? They seem to be more about finding the most recent tweet containing your keyword. I would rather see the results weighted by retweets or something to help find 'relevant' tweets.
Re: Twitter Ain't Search
#4"I don't understand a concept, but I'm going to try to debunk it anyways."
Re: Twitter Ain't Search
#5Next time there's breaking news in your neighborhood (like an earthquake) try your search on Google and on Search.Twitter.com and see which has the news faster.
Twitter is instant. Google has to wait for someone to publish an article on the news and then Google needs to index that article.
Plus with Google, the article's headline doesn't give you the whole story. It's a tease. You have to click over to read the story. On search.Twitter.com, you get the whole thing at once.
Re: Twitter Ain't Search
#6"I don't understand a concept, but I'm going to try to debunk it anyways."
Good assessment of this article. Although I do agree that Twitter search is being overhyped right now. Big time. It's basically the only thing left to hype so TechCrunch et al are milking it for all it's worth.
Twitter search is useful as an opinion poll or for updates on breaking news, but only so much depth and value can fit into 140 characters. More than anything, I think Twitter thrives off vanity and narcissism. It's millions of people saying "look at me" and it's even easier to main and establish popularity than a blog.
Re: Twitter Ain't Search
#7"I don't understand a concept, but I'm going to try to debunk it anyways."
Good assessment of this article. Although I do agree that Twitter search is being overhyped right now. Big time. It's basically the only thing left to hype so TechCrunch et al are milking it for all it's worth. Twitter search is useful as an opinion poll or for updates on breaking news, but only so much depth and value can fit into 140 characters. More than anything, I think Twitter thrives off vanity and narcissism.…
I was interested in a (very recent) event that Twitter offered the absolute BEST coverage for, all via search.twitter.com: the NHL trade deadline.
Traditional news sources, blogs, TSN.ca, ESPN, Globe & Mail, etc all were slow on updates and commentary about prospective trades and evaluations of minor-league talent. I used search.twitter.com and searched for "#nhltrade" and "nhl" and had a constant stream of news and information. And by subscribing to the very best sources of news I could find there, I was notified of trades via SMS.*
Sure, it isn't "search" the way most people think about it, but its the best search for a specific use case.
* A side note: this allowed me to stay up to date while being slightly more productive at work. I wasn't constantly refreshing pages or listening to talk radio.
Re: Twitter Ain't Search
#8Has this guy heard of search.twitter.com?
Is their search anything more than finding text in a tweet? They seem to be more about finding the most recent tweet containing your keyword. I would rather see the results weighted by retweets or something to help find 'relevant' tweets.
Sure, it could do more. But it does what it does very well.
Re: Twitter Ain't Search
#9Next time there's breaking news in your neighborhood (like an earthquake) try your search on Google and on Search.Twitter.com and see which has the news faster. Twitter is instant. Google has to wait for someone to publish an article on the news and then Google needs to index that article. Plus with Google, the article's headline doesn't give you the whole story. It's a tease. You have to click over to read the story…
I don't know about an earthquake, never felt one, but in all honesty I would rather read an article the 140 characters would be a tease as much specifics couldn't be given.
If you think about it twitter would be good for traffic or something like that, but only if a radio station or some larger element was relaying the message.
The same goes for a natural disaster, I'm not going to go look and see about a tornado or something along those lines on twitter, but a news company could relay it to me and this is about the biggest use I see of twitter search.
In all honesty if I was searching for a subject it would be because I am aware of it and want to learn more, be it a disaster, story, or subject; twitter to me is exactly what it claims to be a way to update your status quickly and as much as you want.
Re: Twitter Ain't Search
#10Next time there's breaking news in your neighborhood (like an earthquake) try your search on Google and on Search.Twitter.com and see which has the news faster. Twitter is instant. Google has to wait for someone to publish an article on the news and then Google needs to index that article. Plus with Google, the article's headline doesn't give you the whole story. It's a tease. You have to click over to read the story…
The timeliness of Twitter is definitely amazing. I think a lot of things will break via Twitter, and IIRC the emergency landing in the Hudson was one of these stories. It's the undisputed champ of quickly getting information "out there" ... provided you matter to enough people for it to begin to spread virally.
It's definitely cool to see people's take on ultra-current events, and Twitter search can provide the Who, What, Where, When, and Why, but does not dig very deep into any of them. And because of the vast amounts of noise, it also requires you to know beforehand what you're looking for.
What Twitter search is amazing at is eyewitness accounts in realtime for things you're actively seeking... but to me eyewitness accounts are only one aspect of the story, and usually I'm not seeking anything in particular. News has its place, and Twitter has its place, I don't see them intersecting over any other aspect than eyewitness accounts.