Whistling in the Dark

Yet more on the Twitter thing

Posted on 2008.04.25 at 16:58

I've now had a couple people say that it's annoying to have to click through to read the twits on the Loudtwitter post, when they just want to glance and see them. At this point, I'm going to go back to that.

Sometimes, you just can't get rid of a bomb!

22 comments Leave a comment

Add to Memories Tell a Friend

Comments:

lurkerwithout at 2008-04-25 21:12 (UTC) (Link)

I've seen at least one person on my f-list say they'll be culling their list based on how much Twitter they have to deal with. So you can't really win I guess...

(Reply) (Thread)

taimatsu at 2008-04-25 21:30 (UTC) (Link)

I've dropped one person (who tbh I wasn't much interested in anyway) because from posting very little he suddenly became an endless stream of mind-numbingly inane Twitter crap.

Eric's more interesting than that, so no immediate danger, but Twitter still gets the thumbs-down from me.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

scarfman at 2008-04-25 21:37 (UTC) (Link)

Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb.

(Reply) (Thread)

fmphoenixhawk at 2008-04-26 00:25 (UTC) (Link)

Sure you can. Just make sure to shove someone else between you and it. Preferably while behind a large steel-reinforced concrete wall.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

z_gryphon at 2008-04-25 21:47 (UTC) (Link)

Apparently I must revise my opinion that Twitter has no actual usefulness whatsoever. It seems if you're going to get locked up by third-world police who don't bother taking your cellphone away, it can be quite handy.

I still find it irritating, though. :)

(Reply) (Thread)

demiurgent at 2008-04-25 22:52 (UTC) (Link)

Many irritants are useful tools in the fight against oppression. I keep waiting to learn that allergies can be used to combat communism.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

z_gryphon at 2008-04-25 22:58 (UTC) (Link)

That would be awesome, albeit a bit untimely. Perhaps minor chronic skin irritation holds the key to defeating religious extremism...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

weds at 2008-04-25 23:02 (UTC) (Link)

You're saying anaphylaxis doesn't?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

z_gryphon at 2008-04-25 23:33 (UTC) (Link)

Well... hmm. Interesting idea! We just might make some headway if we released angry bees into extremist places of worship during services, and that would most likely involve at least some anaphylaxis. :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

rosa_draconum at 2008-04-25 23:37 (UTC) (Link)

Bees covered in peanut butter would be better. Not only would you increase the number of people you affect, it would make the bees angrier.

Also, peanut butter and honey is DELICIOUS!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

z_gryphon at 2008-04-25 23:49 (UTC) (Link)

Man. I wouldn't want to be the bee-buttering officer on that mission. Talk about your tricky, thankless jobs...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

wedgex at 2008-04-26 00:41 (UTC) (Link)

Obviously what needs to be done is to genetically engineer half of the bees to have peanut butter in their stingers instead of venom. Or better yet, a venom/peanut butter hybrid! Brilliant!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

norda at 2008-04-25 21:53 (UTC) (Link)

I've been of two minds about the folks on my list who Twitter. I never know whether they're putting their thoughts out there for me to comment on, the same way they would in a lengthier and more directed journal entry, or whether their Twitterings are really just notes to themselves as reminders to write more fully when time permits.

Where do you stand on this?

(Reply) (Thread)

demiurgent at 2008-04-25 22:51 (UTC) (Link)

Well, I configured Loudtwitter to only post my 'solo' twits here -- not the conversation twits (the stuff to @someone). And my general style seems to tend toward observation instead of comment. Less "I go to bathroom nao" and more "Bathroom graffiti seems to be getting less clever with time instead of improving or holding steady."

So, I guess I fall closer to the 'thoughts for you to comment on' camp. I won't promise not to have some of the other, though.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

weds at 2008-04-25 22:46 (UTC) (Link)

I think the sanest compromise here is an opt-in alternative, either by providing direction to the RSS and/or Atom feeds your Twitter account generates for assorted views, or pointing LoudTwitter at a separate weblog (extant or new) and making a feed for those specific entries available.

The latter makes the most sense to me in the abstract (blog-topic feed will not update with every post, but rather supply the aggregate content as and when LoudTwitter disgorges the digest to it), but concerns me in the specific. You'd need appropriate robots.txt so that Google doesn't ding pagerank (assuming extant blog option) for duplicated content belonging to multiple Eric Burnses.

This isn't a you-crit; it's progressed to a technicial concern.

(Reply) (Thread)

demiurgent at 2008-04-25 22:53 (UTC) (Link)

Is it weird that I find your technical ruminations and troubleshooting unimaginably hot?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

weds at 2008-04-25 23:00 (UTC) (Link)

Only if you don't then implement the solutions. ;)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

wedgex at 2008-04-26 00:09 (UTC) (Link)

GET A ROOM. oh, wait... :D

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

chadu at 2008-04-25 22:51 (UTC) (Link)

Sixties TV Batman FTW.

CU

(Reply) (Thread)

elfstar18 at 2008-04-26 00:02 (UTC) (Link)

You're the only person on my flist who twitters, and I confess that I find it baffling and not interesting. But you lj-cut it, and I *choose* to read your journal after all (we don't know each other at all in real life), so it's not that much of a problem.

(Reply) (Thread)