Sitting Under The Tree, Part 4

Well, hello: Welcome back under the tree! It's been a long, long time, hasn't it? Take a seat, have a cookie, some milk (if you like) - and enjoy! (Or just do whatever you do while reading blog postings. - Wait a minute. Sounds like "copy'n'paste". Nah, never mind.)

While I've been quite lazy, at least as for writing blog postings, folks at Twitter came up with some interesting new features. Giving that a second thought I should call them just "interesting" as they were not exactly new to the community. But let's take small steps, one after the other.

The features I'm talking about are "retweeting" and "lists". And looking back they are not exactly new to Twitter users, yet they are new in the way they are implemented. We all know that people find their way to work around limitations they are confronted with. What is interesting about it is that they manage to find some common ground and make this workaround work for many or even most of us.

One of those workarounds on Twitter is about what is called "retweeting". The original challenge was to publish a received update again (for what reason ever) in a way that it could be recognized in the timeline as re-published, as re-tweeted. To learn more about retweeting please visit the Twitter Fan Wiki or Mashable - to mention two possible resources.

You may find out that retweeting isn't just a workaround any longer but it has become a special part of the Twitter culture. As with being cited, being retweeted shows that the update must have been of some value for someone - and that someone has read the update! Don't laugh, think about it: imagine the amount of updates per second published on Twitter. And suddenly there is an update that is published once more. Maybe again and again. See? It is about influence too...

But my intention is not to explain the psychological aspects or those of group dynamics. Far from it. My point is that the community using Twitter has been using a way to deal with the challenge of republishing updates for months, for years. And it is still working.

Some weeks ago the folks at Twitter introduced their approach to that challenge. As they have the means and the tools at their hand, their interpretation of how to retweet is slightly different from the workarounds that have been in use for a long time. Using the web interface provided by Twitter, there is a button to be found next to each and every update offering the retweet option.

To learn more about it, please have a look at "Project Retweet: Phase One" by @biz on the Twitter Blog or a posting on that subject found on Mashable - or use the search engine of your choice to find out more about it.

As far as I am concerned, I don't see the point in the "official" retweet option provided by Twitter. Sure, it is nice, handy and, well, it is different. Yet to me, as I'm using Twitter for nine months now, the "traditional" way to retweet is somewhat more honest and maybe even more worth reading it.

Honest? Worth reading? Why? Because - assuming that the original update didn't make use of all the 140 characters - it leaves you some space to add your own comment. You can tell others what made you republish that tweet. You can add a comment on the original statement. You can add - value. In a way. The solution provided by Twitter lacks this options. Sad fact. But sure, they offer an option.

In the end it's up to you and me which way we prefer to retweet. All I can say is that there sure will be stuff worth retweeting. Well, at least I think so when taking a look at the list of people I am following... What brings me to the other new, errr, interesting feature: lists.

Lists. Lists? Indeed. Yet another way to manage the ones you are following? Yes. Again, let's take small steps, one after the other. Good places to start from may be the Twitter Fan Wiki (to get the idea of some traditional, workaround approach), "Soon to Launch: Lists" by @nk on the Twitter blog, or Mashable.

Since I joined Twitter I came across lots of sites offering some kind of help in building groups made up of people using Twitter. There were and there are different reasons why trying to do so. One sure is to help people to get in touch with others that are sharing similar interests - whatever that might be. Even though I only use sites and services like that in a passive way (registering, signing in and leaving again), I can see: it might be useful. Another reason, especially for creating groups offline (within the Twitter client of your choice), is laziness and pretending.

Confused? Why would it be lazy to use groups? Why would I call someone using groups a pretender? Well, it is about numbers. Again. This time it is about the number of people one can follow on Twitter - and still read what they are writing. Think about it: do you read all of the tweets published by the people you are following? (Sure, if you are not using Twitter, never mind.)

Building groups or lists may help those who are following lots of people to keep in touch with and read the updates of those people they are really interested in. And the rest? Well, the rest, they may feel better as the one they are following did follow back. Or something like that. I leave that to your imagination. The point is that in case one is following hundreds or thousands of people one needs to organize and prioritize. In that case groups have been the tool of choice ever since.

Now Twitter offers its own group-building tool. They call it lists. And it is a clever approach: you can have public and private ones! Private lists instantly make sense as they are very much like the group tools other Twitter clients offer. As they offer similar functionality they are ideal for those who like to follow more people but want to read less tweets at the same time. But it is only one possible use.

Others are very similar to those offered by online services: building groups of people (one is following) because of a subject, an interest, of interesting content - and show this collections to others. That way everyone interested can easily find new feeds with possibly interesting updates. From that point of view lists can be some kind of extension to the use of hashtags. In the end it is up to everyone on Twitter interested in the lists feature to find out for themselves what lists can be used for.

As far as I am concerned, especially private lists have the aftertaste of some kind of betrayal. I would feel like a pretender if I would use a private list to read only updates of some of the people I am following. Sure, I played around and have set up some lists. But in the end, to me only reading the classic feed summary feels right. That is why I will stay with my principles: only follow people with (kind of) interesting updates and only as many as can seriously be read.

So, what are the lists about you are going to build? Well, go out there and have fun finding out! (You may find some hints and some help reading another article on Mashable.)

Me? I will lean back and sit here, whisteling my own tunes from time to time - and listen to the birds tweeting. Sitting under the tree.

CU - GU!

Sitting Under The Tree, Part 3

Welcome back again, sitting under the tree. Pleased to meet you (again), great to have you around! Especially nowadays when it appears to be hunting season on Twitter!

What? Wait a minute: hunting season? Good question - no, I didn't lose my mind! (Not yet, even though some may have noticed that I'm working on it.) Yes, hunting season!

Just a few days ago we could follow (did we?) the race between Ashton Kutcher (@aplusk) and CNN (@cnnbrk). Race? For what? A race for follower no. 1.000.000. I won't get into details here. I'd like to focus on that figure: 1.000.000. Maybe you can already imagine my face when @m140z suggested (were they serious?) a similar kind of celeb race for followers in Germany. Reading my own lines, this still makes me shake my head. Anyway.

Just a week or something before that happened, @AppleInvestor (aka @Twitlinker aka @JavaChief) brought my attention to a similar playground. There are a lot of people out there trying to sell nothing less than the ultimate way to gain thousands of followers. 10.000, 15.000, 25.000 - chosse a number, it's up to you! Just hand'em the cash and they will take care. Well, they may - or may not. To be honest, that doesn't take us anywhere here. Again it's in those numbers.

Wow. I can remember the day I started tweeting I was completely blown away as I saw that the counter for followers had changed from 0 to 1, went up to 2 some hours later. Imagine: There's someone out there who's kind of interested in what you've got to say! And it's even more flattering that the number of followers did rise even higher. It's amazing to me!

But why would I feel the need push it? That's the question that's going round in my mind! To me it is one thing if you stay in one place long enough and just find an audience (or real friends, that's left to your proper definition). That may be by chance, that may be because of recommendation (as you may find in tradition of #followfriday or something similar). At least that's my kind of naive approach. Well, I like it - and a couple of people out there appear to like it that way too.

@AppleInvestor brought the idea to me (not personally but by his tweets) that you can use techniques to improve the number of followers. I'm not quite sure if he's serious about it. But assuming he's taking his own medicine it sure works out for him and it's an impressing number of followers he gained, that's for sure. But while reading his re-appearing tweets on that topics a single question came to my mind: Why would I do that?

Sure, his ideas are still kind of a classic approach on it. And he's completely right when he asks again and again: Why would I believe in someone who's trying to sell me followers for money? Why would I believe it's a one-way road that ups my follower counter by a single kick-start? And why would I believe those people won't get back on me, asking for more, offering more?

There is one point in all that, that's for sure, and I think that's why those "salesmen" get a grip on quite a number of people: Many people are around on social networks to make a show of how popular they are, how well-known they are - and they just do believe in that! They don't care about a single follower. They don't care about what they're tweeting and how they interact with their so-called network. They need the biggest house with the biggest pool and the latest Ferrari (continue if you like). That's all.

My conclusion is that - as with most things, especially on the social networks - you're much better off when you just don't judge the book by ist cover. Talking about me, I just started to develop my network on Twitter. But I already found some very, very interesting people out there. Some tweets are just entertaining, some tweets deliver interesting news or great advices. And one starts to get involved: One sends a reply here, gets a direct message there and vice versa. One gets into contact, one gets part of it.

Talking about me, that's my understanding of a social media network. And that is what I learned to like within and about Twitter. There are just great people out there like @JustTooBusy, @markshaw, @ScottGiorgini, @NinaRoosen, @nencetti - just to mention a few of those I am pround of to be in touch with. (All of you, my dear followers, that I didn't mention: I beg your pardon! Space and time are quite limited, you know...) To me it's the old story about "give and take" - I will not get into details on that here. It's just my point I want to make here: It's the respect and the exchange between people that counts - not the numbers (neither of followers nor of tweets)!

In my humble opinion there's no need to be jealous of someone's follower network growing faster than the own one. It's just not about the numbers, it's about the people and the network! There sure is a reason, but who cares. Just share that co-tweeter's happiness about his touch, that he just found his domain and that so many people seem to like it.

On the other hand - and I'm serious about that - I think one can be pround and even more feel honored if there is just one single person out there who follows one's tweets: There must be just something about it! So that is great - and suddenly there are two people who care! (Maybe just the beginning.)

That said, I want to invite everybody who managed to read through this that far to leave a comment, just to let me (and others) know what your opinion is on that! And feel free to contact me via Twitter: It is all about communication and connection!

Now I will lean back again, calm down, and start listening again to the birds singing their songs right here, right now - with me sitting under the tree.

CU - GU!

("Hello friend, welcome home!")

Sitting Under The Tree, Part 2

Well, hello: Welcome under the tree again! Take a seat, take a cookie, some milk (if you like) - and enjoy! (Or just do whatever you do while reading blog postings.)

I've been around here for a couple of days now. Thereby "here" means as much as with Twitter. And it's quite a place, sure it is. Sometimes it's just amusing, sometimes it makes me think.

One point I came across is the follower-following-ratio that can be found amongst the accounts. It's amazing, just figure it out: people following hundreds of feeds! - What brings me to the question that suddenly stroke me: is it possible to really, seriously follow that many tweets a day?

I made up my mind a little bit on that. Aware of the saying what assuming can make of you and me I'll do it anyway: Let's assume that the good old 80/20 rule works for this one too. Which one? Oh, yes. Thinking about 100 feeds to be followed, 20 of them might create 80 percent of the tweets. If those people are less active that may lead to about 20 tweets per hour. That's all right. But what happens in case these people have quite a mind and things to say? That can lead to about 40 to 60 tweets an hour - one tweet every minute!

Now, let's step back and take a look. One tweet every minute, at least every two minutes. What about all the people out there complaining 'bout more-than-full e-mail inboxes? Am I the only one to find that a little bit strange?

Let's change point of view a little bit: Who's to read it? Again back to e-mail for comparison. There are junk filters, spam filters, inbox rules and a lot more stuff to do filtering on what's coming in. (Well, that's why it's called inbox. Never mind.) But that's done because you sometimes just don't have a choice on what you get and who might send a message to you. And after all, honestly, a lot of messages remain in the inbox (or a subfolder) kind of unread. (No, don't lie to me...)

Back to the lovely tweets. In most cases you have a choice. You choose which feeds you'd like to follow. That may be because it's entertaining, useful or anything else. But again I'll do an assumption: you only follow tweets because you read them (most of the time). - Remember the figures from above? One tweet every minute? Can that be done? Honestly?

I don't want to give answers here. It is a very personal thing. Some people just can't get enough whereas others are overstrained quite easily. Everyone has to judge this for himself. (Please pardon my political incorrectness.) It just came to my mind...

I know of a small experiment performed by @jadito. He just asked for a reply using the words "read" in the message. He wanted to find out how many of the following/followers really read and tend to the messages they receive. I may be mistaken by the proper goals of the experiment but as far as I learned the result was quite disillusioning - even though it was expectable.

Another good point is that some people just have a life. (Yes, they have!) @nencetti asked: "If I am too busy to use Social Media sites, does hat make me Anti-Social Media?" Quite a question, isn't it? Many people "like social media", but "never have the time. Day job, marriage, life, etc." Good points I think.

So, how many feeds with tweets you can follow seriously? Yes, it depends, that's right. Everyone of us is different. That's how it's meant to be. That's why everybody can feel free to ask the question and answer it for himself. (Don't get me 'bout the political incorrectness!) As far as I am concerned, I am about to follow 50 feeds - and I am about to draw the line there. Just have to see how much noise, er, tweets there will be during the next couple of days.

Until then I will sit here, whisteling my own tunes from time to time - and listen to the birds tweeting. Sitting under the tree.

CU - GU!

Sitting Under The Tree, Part 1

All right, here we go. But what is in a name - or a headline? Well, let me try to explain.

I'm not quite new to that world of networked computers, not really. Curiosity and exaltation for the new things to discover using well-known tools have driven me to use Twitter and start this blog. Kind of late compared to others, but anyway.

Now, here I am, sitting under the tree. Which tree you might ask. Sorry, let me explain. Those of you who know be sure know which company I'm addicted to. That company's logo not always has been a fruit only. Anyone remember the first one? (Search Wikipedia or Google, sure will find, what I'm writing about.) So, I may write on my experience on these products from time to time.

But now for the other tree, let me call it Twitter tree. Yes, after all I joined this community with a smile on my face. The stories about the beginning of Twitter in mind I wasn't sure at all if I would stay for long. No need to repeat the questions that were running through my mind - many others have left their notes on it on The Net.

Let me tell you, I'm no longer looking for a sense in Twitter. I still have a smile on my face when it comes to Twitter. It might lack sense frome time to time, but it can be just fun. Nothing more, nothing less. So I'm sitting under the tree with all it's birds and listen to them, tweeting.

From time to time it can be quite noisy. Following some of the people, you might find you in front of a wave of messages exchanged between them. That's what I call noisy - just like startled birds. Nayway, that's part of Twitter, like it or not.
But there are times of silence, too. Noone you follow has a thing to write about, you yourself have neither. Looking at the Public Timeline, things are going slow there, too. As annoying as the noise might be, the silence is strange to me frrom time to time.

Sitting under the tree you have to live with the droppings. Spam is everywhere, and the wave of spam sure still has to strike Twitter. Until then you just have to learn to recognize this stuff. And followers aren't all that counts.
On the other hand some birds in the tree are almost unhearable, but their tweets are that sweet you don't want to miss a single one. I call myself lucky to come across some of those tweets now and then. It's kind of an inspiration from time to time. Others just are, well, nice.
Last but not least some birds are around that take the word too serious: "Eat like a bird, poop like an elephant." I'm pretty sure that these words by Guy Kawasaki are terribly mistake from time to time. (Note to myself: Think about it!)

Well, but after all I like to sit here, whisteling my own tunes from time to time - and listen to the birds tweeting. Sitting under the tree.

CU - GU!