Comments on: How Many People Should I Follow on Twitter?

By: Brandon Collins

Brandon Collins — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:51:17 +0000

A very good post and much-needed. I have been one of those who kept my twitter stream very small and manageable so that I could interact with each tweet, but recently I have “loosened my hold” on my stream and started following more people.

Your analogy about television is perfect. I never know when I may have a spare minute. When one pops up I pull up TweetDeck (not the only time I do it, mind you). Before, my stream was like only having a few channels. The odds of something good being on were small. With so many “channels,” I can always find something interesting to read or interact with.

Thanks for helping me understand this tool a little better.

By: routerguy

routerguy — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:01:30 +0000

I suppose I consume television differently than some (most?) people, in that I rarely watch it non-time-shifted. Granted, in twitter it’s simple to look back, but even with the relatively paltry 200+ people that I’m following, looking back isn’t very practical because of the sheer volume. Personally, I find that the immediacy and interactivity of twitter is what separates it from traditional blogs, which I would tend to more easily find analogous to television. And for those we have the equivalent of TV Guide, with sites like Digg, Stumbleupon, etc. and synopsis via rss feeds. Twitter actually reminds me more of the old school online chat rooms: A bunch of random people, a lot of “regulars”, lots of noise, but some great conversations and ideas in the mix as well. And like those chat rooms, as the number of participants in the room increased, it became more and more difficult to follow.

By: James Dickey

James Dickey — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:55:34 +0000

I don’t completely agree that Twitter is more concurrent than television. In fact, if I miss a show on a channel I’m not tuned to, unless it’s available on demand or already on DVD, I’m stuck. In Twitter it’s very easy for me to look back into my following stream or the list of tweets of anyone to see what they said hours or days ago.
I frequently have people comment on or retweet things I’ve said hours or days earlier. In fact, I consider the mix of real-time and asynchronous interaction that Twitter enables to be one of its unique strengths.
You’re right that scale is difficult, but that’s more a mind shift – a recognition and comfort with the inability to be in on everything – which was always an illusion anyway.

By: routerguy

routerguy — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:23:33 +0000

Unlike television,Twitter is by nature an interactive and concurrent medium, where there are not hundreds of “channels” but millions. Not statically consumed, but built for two-way communication. And there’s no channel guide. Tools like tweetdeck, destroytwitter, and hashtags help sort and organize the information flow, but I’ve found nothing that scales well. It’s an interesting analogy though, and probably as close as anything else I can come up with, but the sheer scale makes it different on an intrinsic level.

By: Leo

Leo — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:17:39 +0000

Interesting post. I never thought of twitter being compared to television although I do see the similarities. I think just like TV, it could be a time wasting resource….albeit very entertaining (actually depends who you follow)…