4 ms·
There are conversations that work on twitter, and ones that don't. In general, twitter conversations are quick back-and-forth affairs. If you need more than 2
by chton 12y ago
There are conversations that work on twitter, and ones that don't. In general, twitter conversations are quick back-and-forth affairs. If you need more than 2 tweets to express your thought, you're either using the wrong medium or thinking too far. If that conversation model doesn't fit you, that's perfectly fine, but that's not the fault of twitter. It's just a bad match-up. In that case, it's perfectly fine to respond to a tweet with a link to a medium that does support your model better.
If you do get roped into a conversation where you need more tweets to explain, here's a few simple guidelines:
- Don't split sentences over tweets. People will only read one part.
- If you really must, use "(cont.)" on both tweets (end of the first and start of the second), so it's obvious there was another part. I know that reduces your character limit, but it's worth it to be less ambiguous
- Make each continued tweet a reply to its predecessor. You can reply to your own tweets. It facilitates following the conversation on most clients.
- If it's more than 2 tweets, consider using twitlonger. In general, that should be a last resort, though.
Without trying to make it sound high-handed, there's something of an art to smooth twitter conversations. Terseness is the key. I find them rewarding because, when done right, they have an enormous density of information in a short time.
- 01Michael10 12y agoConversations on Twitter? I use Twitter as read-only for information to see what certain people and groups are up to in near real-time.
- chton 12y agoThere's more than one way to Twitter. If you know some people on it personally, you're more likely to engage in conversations.
- 01Michael10 12y agoThere are people I do know on Twitter but do not converse with them on there. I email, text, or IM them. Always use the best tools that are available...
- chton 12y agoI agree, use the best tools. But if you email or text them, there is no way for other people to join the conversation. Think of a twitter conversation as one at a party where you know people. Anybody can come join in, and can add value. It's more akin to conversing on IRC than over email.
- 01Michael10 12y agoHoly crap, now it's a multi-person conversation? I would say let's meet for drinks... How about Hangouts or what ever one uses on iPhones? Maybe this is more for the under 25 crowd who like to do things the hard way on 5" screens with no keyboards. Not me...
- chton 12y agoIt can be. This conversation is a multi-person one too. That's still different than, say, hangouts because everybody is free to reply, not just people you invited. Maybe somebody neither of us know will read this next month and come up with an interesting counterpoint. In any case, using some form of video calling is too intrusive. I can type this reply, do something else for 10 minutes, then check back. But then I was always one for text mediums rather than video or audio calls :)
- coldpie 12y agoGod, I know. I keep hearing about conversations and such on twitter, while I have a hard time fitting a single thought into a tweet, much less a thoughtful response to someone's query. Look! Even that sentence was longer than a tweet! I don't know how people do it.
- chton 12y agoTerseness is a learned skill. Verbosity is too. They're not mutually exclusive, you can apply them where they work. And they're both useful. (That's exactly 140 characters for you :) )
- eevilspock 12y ago"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." — Blaise Pascal (sometimes wrongly attributed to Mark Twain)
- vacri 12y agoBeing terse is not a good thing. Being succinct is.
- chton 12y agoAs far as I know, the two are synonyms in common parlance. I chose 'terse' because it's the usual converse of 'verbose'.
- vacri 12y agoTerseness is short, abrupt, irritated. Succinctness is short, clearly explained. They both mean short, but the tones of the words are quite different. '"Leave me be!", he replied succinctly' doesn't work, for example. To me, this is exactly the kind of nuance that is lost by training yourself to limit ideas to 140 characters.
- chton 12y ago
- Jedd 12y ago> In general, twitter conversations are quick back-and-forth affairs. If you need more than 2 tweets to express your thought, you're either using the wrong medium or thinking too far. Hmmm. I'm not sure how to respond to the suggestion that people who can't fully express their thoughts in around 300 characters are thinking too far ... or the subtly implied pejorative of 'too-far-thinking'. Aside: I note you used 1386 characters to describe the benefits of terseness.
- genericuser 12y agoMost people probably fall into the using the wrong medium category. If you are taking are taking over 140 characters to say what amount's to 'Who want's to go to Olive Garden?' then you are thinking too far though. And he specifically chose a medium which was not twitter to describe it.
- chton 12y agoNo pejorative was meant at all. My point about 'thinking too far' was about the singular thought you're trying to express. It's easy to want to say too much, 'walking the chain too far' if you will. Twitter is a far more iterative medium than most, and expressing a complicated thought isn't a case of writing it out in whole. Usually, you will develop the thought together with the other party. Conversations are closer to a form of collective thinking than a long-form debate. Thought patterns are more on display. Aside: this conversation would have taken a very different form if we had had it on twitter. The medium defines the form. So I don't mind being verbose here :)
- Jedd 12y agoThank you for your thoughtful response. The idea of iteration through (a) thought I think has been explained to me before, but I must have suppressed it. I can see why it's necessary within the context and medium of twitter ... however I'm unconvinced (duh :) that it's a useful constraint to apply to a communication medium. I don't expect I'm unique in voicing this opinion. The idea of developing a thought with another party, or as you also describe it, 'collective thinking', is genuinely anathema to me. I'm happy to have a discussion that involves me adjusting my thinking, and, of course, a discussion that results in the other party(/ies) adjusting their thinking. Actually, I expect that essence of conciliation and compromise is what you're describing. However, the idea of avoiding 'long term debate' really does unnerve me. Perhaps I've been debating for too many years with people that I really wouldn't want to share a collective thought with.
- rakoo 12y agoAs a Twitter non-user, my recommendation would be: - Write a post explaining your views, and tweet the link to it.
- eli 12y agoOne of the main reasons I have a blog.
- mathattack 12y ago"If you need more than 2 tweets to express your thought, you're either using the wrong medium or thinking too far. If that conversation model doesn't fit you, that's perfectly fine, but that's not the fault of twitter." Very true. It's like blaming a radio for not having pictures to go with an advertisement. Wrong tool. Echo chambers aren't good for in depth conversations.
- _pmf_ 12y agoThere are no use cases for Twitter in professional communication if your profession is not communication itself.
- skywhopper 12y agoWhat happened with antirez, though, is that he did express himself fully in one tweet, but it was misread by some people.