Before I write anything else, let me emphasize that I believe the real news here is a major earthquake. As I write this, the news reports indicate 900 high schools students are trapped beneath rubble. As a parent, I know where my mind and heart are as I read such news.

Admittedly, how the news broke on this story is an extremely esoteric sidebar, however for those who are passionate users and observers of online media and the way in which participants in an event can “broadcast” their observations, the role of Twitter as a form of first responder medium in this tragedy is already being analyzed in the technosphere (good examples: MG Siegler at VentureBeat, The Onlline Journalism Blog and the ubber-blogger/twitterer Robert Scoble) and even by some mainstream media tech-news observers like this quote from the BBC’s dot.life blogger, Rory Cellan-Jones:

“Let’s see, as this story unfolds, whether this is the moment when Twitter comes of age as a platform which can bring faster coverage of a major news event than traditional media, while allowing participants and onlookers to share their experiences.

Again, this is a sidebar to a breaking story, but (as I’ve written about for a long time) the folks “playing around” with Twitter are creating something that is not just about “play.” It may remain an “edge” medium — a global police scanner for the news obsessed — but I stand by my predictions that Twitter will become the source people will turn to in the early, confusing moments of breaking news stories. As stories develop, the traditional models of reporting will kick in, but Twitter — because one can post to it via text-message, IM, e-mail, (and via secondary services, voice-to-text, audio, video or photos posted elsewhere can be converted into or alerted via “tweets”) — is a powerful eyewitness and message-relay platform.

And for the record, if I’m ever “inside” a breaking news story, Twitter is where you’ll find me.

Later: Search rock-star Danny Sullivan points out that the US Geological Service had information on its website within three minutes of the first “tweet” on the topic. I don’t think anyone (and certainly not me) has suggested that Twitter is a new “authority” on the news of earthquakes or any disaster. Obviously, news will get disseminated with or without it. That Twitter is even in the food-chain is what’s noteworthy today.

I’m sorry. The title of this post is a joke. I’m merely referring to Kara’s post in which she talks about informally polling some friends outside the bubble of Silicon Valley (where she lives and works) regarding their awareness of Twitter and some other services that, well, a few of us use obsessively but that haven’t reached a level of awareness — even a level of obscurity — among “real” people.

Says Kara:

“I conducted a little experiment among the more than 100 folks gathered for the wedding (in Washington, DC), all of whom were quite intelligent, armed with all kinds of the latest devices (many, many people had iPhones, for example) and not sluggish about technology. They were also made up of a wide range of ages and genders, from kids to seniors. And so I asked a large group of people –- about 30 — and here is the grand total who knew what Twitter was: 0

As I’ve blogged here before, I’ve given up on trying to explain Twitter. I know how I use it and why I like it. But, as with most of the social media or gizmo-technology I experiment with: I really don’t care who uses — or doesn’t. I’m not going to attempt to convert anyone — although, I guess adding my Twitter account to my business card is an implicit act of network-effect evangelism and endorsement.

Over the years, I’ve learned that when it comes to certain types of new media, the gap between geek adoption and “real people” adoption is typically wide.

I’ve mentioned on this blog that in 1996, I gave a presentation about the Internet to the 300-member Downtown Nashville Rotary Club. I asked for a show of hands from the audience filled with civic and business leaders: “How many of you have your e-mail address printed on your business card?” I recall precisely that six people raised their hands. Six.

Two years later, I gave a similar presentation to the same group and asked the same question. Nearly everyone in the audience raised their hands.

One of the reasons (one among several) I register on new “social networking” services is to watch their adoption rates — often there is no adoption rate, but almost always there’s a long lag time between geek and real-world registrations. For example, I registered on LinkedIn on February 3, 2004 — over four years ago. For a year or so, I had a grand total of 3-4 contacts, all geeks, and probably all of them personal friends of the creators of the service.

I had nearly forgotten that I’d registered on the service when, a couple of years ago, I started getting a few more connection requests when they added a feature that allows users to upload their contact list and bounce it against a database of LinkedIn users. (I’ve written before about this use of e-mail as a means to assert identity and serve as a rudimentary precursor to some way in the future where we can all easily migrate our “connections” from service to service. In the past month, I’ve received more LinkedIn connection requests than in the previous 3 1/2 years combined — and they’re all coming from my off-line connections. But still, a poll of my offline friends would probably still reveal that few of them have heard of LinkedIn.

So, as for Kara’s friends. Mine are the same. I regularly ask people if they’ve ever heard of Twitter. I then work my way up to services like Flickr. (They’ve all heard of Google, for the record.)

Kara is correct. No real person has ever heard of Twitter.

Sidenote: About two months ago, I spent a 30 minute cab ride from Baltimore (BWI) to DC explaining my use of Twitter to a commissioner of the FCC. Later that day, I spent 15 minutes in a similar discussion of Twitter with 12 CEOs of business-to-business media companies who were perplexed by my use of the service — as they were with my early blogging many years ago.

As I listen to myself explain Twitter, I’m surprised anyone uses it. However, as I discovered just yesterday, using Twitter makes solving problems a snap if you happen to ask a question that someone who’s following you can answer.

Frankly, I think it’s a good thing that Twitter has not gone mainstream yet. But that’s another post for another day.

Later: I believe that Twitter — or something like it — will go “mainstream” one day. It’s just not going to be “soon” in geek-time.

Note: I’m stepping on a plane and will check back in later to edit this post.

Chris Brogan and lots of commenters discuss Andrew Baron’s decision to auction his Twitter account. What he’s actually auctioning are the nearly 1,500 followers the account has built up. Andrew, who owns Rocketboom, has another Twitter account and is rarely using the “@andrewbaron” one.

Chris and his commenters raise some interesting issues. The debate taking place focuses on the notion that Andrew is “selling” or “selling-out” his “community.”

I think it’s a great “micro” lesson in the economics of circulation or subscription-value — or “list value.”.

I don’t think, however, it’s about “community.” Following someone on Twitter is like signing up for an RSS newsfeed. With one-click the subscriber is in or out. No “registering.” No “approving.” No “confirming.” One-click in. One-click out. Anything with that low of an admission price is not a community. I have the same problem with calling Twitter followers “community” that I have with magazine companies calling their subscribers a “community.” To me, community is something the “members” create among themselves. A person or entity may host or foster community — and a community may evolve. But a “list” is not a community.

Is there any value to nearly 1,500 Twitter-users agreeing to follow you account?

There is if they’re the type of people who would follow Andrew Baron.

Will they continue to follow the new account-holder when the “following” is transferred to a new username (if, indeed, it is)?

I’m guessing a majority of the followers won’t know it’s been changed unless it is purchased by an online gambling service who will use it to test out Twitter spam.

Whatever happens, it’s an interesting experiment.

Interestingly, Andrew has picked up a lot of followers since announcing this — including me.

Sidenote: I bet Chris Brogan would do well if he auctioned off his 6,200-follower Twitter account. But in Chris’s case, a community “has” evolved, because he spends so much time and effort introducing one follower to another. With Chris, you get the feeling he actually knows those 6,200 people. In Chris’ case, his followers are not just a list.

Second sidenote: I’m sure there has been some Twitter “username” speculation. I’ve got at least one or two registered for a rainy day.

I think it’s pretty interesting that Hugh MacLeod’s post about deleting his Twitter account is rapidly working its way up Techmeme.com. If this works the way events like this typically work, in a day or two, Hugh will be the lede in a New York Times article on Twitter burn-out. (Those familiar with the blogosophere can easily connect the dots between his post and the upcoming New York Times article. It will start with lots of blog posts saying, “I hate Twitter, also.”) I wish Hugh had not deleted his account — he could have just stopped posting to it — as the historian in me likes to see things archived, rather than wiped-clean. However, if Hugh was finding Twitter a distraction from finishing his book and his art, and he needed to pull the plug completely, I applaud him for doing so. I like Twitter and have written on this blog about how I believe it can serve many positive purposes. But yes, it can be a time-waste. That’s why I try to keep my Twittering in the background and turned off while working. I’ve found the program Twirhl, a desktop Twitter (and other services) client is helping me filter out lots of Twitter noise and have a better framework and context for the use of Twitter.

So I respect Hugh’s decision. Many media and technology people I know have said to me they “don’t get Twitter.” I understand. I’ve even written here that nobody “gets Twitter.” And that’s one of the things about it that I find so fascinating. It’s also why I’m not deleting my Twitter account.

Later: Surpassing actual news about billion dollar tech giants, Hugh’s Why I canceled my Twitter account post is now atop Techmeme. Go figure.

I’m sorry if you landed here thinking this was going to be a helpful explanation about what Twitter is. I’ve given up on attempting to explain Twitter. And chances are, if you’re someone who wants to understand something by reading about it instead of using it, then you’ll probably never understand it.

Twitter is really easy to explain: You set up an account so people can follow what you have to say via the web or instant messaging or via text-messaging on a mobile phone. Unfortunately, Twitter is apparently incredibly difficult to understand, because any time I explain it, the response is inevitably something like: “Uh, so why would you want people to do that — and why would they care?”

Unlike with some online phenomena, understanding Twitter is not a “generational” thing. Twitter is not one of those fads that caught on among kids that has worked its way up the age-chain. It’s more like Google, in that it started as a drop-dead simple solution to a problem no one knew they had — and has become an obsession with a sub-set of tech-geeks and people obsessed with the nature of online community and conversation (I confess).

My then 16-year-old son was with me last March at South by Southwest where Twitter first grabbed the attention of the geekorati. He observed the obsession’s ground-zero, but I’m sure he’d echo the quote from the daughter of this NY Times columnist, who says, “I’m looking at the site right now, and I don’t get the point.” Here’s my theory why teenagers don’t get the point: There’s a feature on Facebook called “status updates” that does everything a teenager would care to do with Twitter, so why bother? To high school and college students, Twitter is like Facebook without the dozens of other things they like about Facebook — except on Facebook, your parents can’t follow you if you don’t allow them to. (You can block someone on Twitter or opt to limit the visibility of your message to only those you follow, but the common practice is to allow anyone to become a follower — really, why not?)

I’d feel worse about my inability to convey to others any level of understanding of why Twitter is important but in comparison to some explanations I’ve seen and heard, I do a decent job. But, unfortunately, we all fail because we drift into explaining Twitter by telling how we use it. But the most amazing thing about Twitter is this: everyone uses it differently.

It’s a little like trying to explain the telephone by describing what people talk about on the phone. “Telephones are devices that teenagers use to spread gossip.” “Telephones are the devices people use to contact police when bad things happen.” “Telephones are the devices you use to call the 7-11 to ask if they have Prince Albert in a can.”

Like the Internet itself, Twitter is hard to explain because it doesn’t really have a point. And it has too many points. Here’s what I mean: All it does is provide a common-place to relay short messages to a group of people who agree to receive your messages. Here’s the second part of what i mean: When you stop thinking those short messages aren’t limited to “I’m about to get on the elevator” but can be eye-witness accounts of breaking news stories or bursts of business-critical intelligence, or warnings that a gun-man is loose on campus, or shared conversations about political debates you and your friends are watching on TV, the possibilities of what can be done using Twitter becomes amazingly confusing — I think in a good way. It’s easy to understand something when you think it’s limited to Prince Albert in a can prank calls. It’s more difficult to understand when you start imagining the ways something that’s today more toy than tool can be used to create new models of communication, conversation and community. It’s even more difficult to imagine that something called Twitter will morph into a serious business platform — or that it will one day save lives. But it will.

Technorati Tags: twitter

Most of the time, when people talk about the network effect, their focus is on its benefits — As new people join a network, the network grows exponentially in value to the next person who joins. While in reality, the “value” of something is ultimately determined by whatever someone is willing to pay for it on eBay, people who discuss theories about things like the network effect have been know to suggest the theoretical value of a network is supposed to be proportional to the square of the number of users. But you knew that already, I’m sure. Less noted are the downsides of the network effect. These relate to its diminishing value as each new person joins — if the resources necessary to the maintain the network do not scale appropriately. This is especially true if the network includes a critical mass of early-adopting tech bloggers. This phenomenon, which some people are beginning to call “the Twitter syndrome,” can be illustrated thusly.:

Bonus link:Mark Evans points out another event that will test Twitter’s mettle - Super Tuesday.

Technorati Tags: twitter

I was surprised to learn via an e-mail from a friend that my post yesterday about the election-night community experience of using Twitter became the basis of a story in this morning’s Nashville Tennessean. (Admittedly, I was more surprised that my ego-trackers did not catch it first.)

I’m a bit amused by the headline, “Local blogger turns on to Twitter during New Hampshire primaries” as it captures the addictive nature of using Twitter in such a context. Fact is, I’ve been turned onto Twitter for a long time as it has merely extended (and replaced) ways I’ve previously participated in conversational communities. For those who may wonder, why Twitter? I’ll say, it works for me — now. It has attracted a critical mass of early users among individuals I know online. Also, the key features of selecting how to receive and send messages (via text, IM, etc.) make it a drop-dead simple method of relaying messages if you’re a person (like me) who moves from browser to e-mail client to IM to mobile device constantly.

As I have many off-line friends who will read the print version of the Tennessean, I am already prepared for the type of comment I get whenever I show up in a story like this: “Hey, I read that story about you doing that whatch-a-ma-callit thing.”

“The Peanut Gallery” (via)

Last night’s post-primary coverage reminded me of something. Actually, it reminded me of many things. But, the first thing that came to mind was November 8, 1994. It was the mid-term election and for an association client of Hammock Inc., a group of us helped coordinate an online election-night forum on CompuServe — a quaint little online service that used to make buggy whips. A hundred or so participants from around the country — all watching TVs at home — were chatting away about the coverage they were viewing and their response to it.

That experience led me to appreciate the enjoyment individuals have in experiencing live events in a shared-way — even if it’s from the cheap seats way up in some dial-up text-only bleachers. That night, I realized that a news event — or any type of event, say a sporting contest — is no longer merely the topic of water-cooler talk the next morning, it’s a potential real-time community gathering. A giant couch filled with friends and foes who are witty or idiotic, but who all together give an additional dimension to the event.

Since 1994, I’ve participated — and hosted — many such online gatherings, primarily among a small group of friends or colleagues. Often the gathering is done via Instant Messaging or Internet Relay (IRC) if the group is comprised of tech-savvy participants. In the past, I’ve discussed on this blog how live events can be experienced in a completely new way when such “back channels” are available so that friends — or even strangers — can interact with one another about what they are both observing or participating in.

Last night, I had an I-see-the-light moment on Twitter when I realized that it has become — for a small segment of the world, at least — a giant real-time peanut gallery for experiencing events. I’ll admit, my additions to the conversation were mostly goofy or rude comments about what was taking place — sorta like watching the State of the Union Address on Comedy Central, but not funny. Others, however, were providing insightful and informative data (@patrickrufinni, for example).

While I’ve occasionally used Twitter for comments about sporting events, this is the first time I’ve jumped into the deep end of posting tweets on Twitter at a blistering pace. (Which is something I often un-follow people for doing.) My tweets were not worth reposting here as they — this can be said about Twitter in general — lose their meaning out of context.

However, I do know this. Using Twitter sure beats screaming at the TV.

Sidenotes: Twitter sure could benefit from having a feature that allows the creation of “groups” for topic-specific tweets. Also, the folks at Politweets.com are using the Twitter API to isolate and display tweets that include the names of candidates. A little bit glitchy but a very creative example of how Twitter can be used for something other than a confusing stream of unrelated chatter.

Note: I’ve also cross-posted this on my “People Page” at Hammock.com.

After adding a del.icio.us link to this discussion on Dave Winer’s weblog regarding Twitter’s business model, I noticed a memorable observation buried in its comment thread. A commenter suggests Twitter may provide a return for its investors, but the commenter thinks it can’t “make money,” as in generate recurring revenue. To this, Dave replies:

“I don’t remember what your definition of “making money” is. To me it means money shows up in my bank account that wasn’t there before.

Frankly, I don’t know why you’d want to spend time reading them, but Techmeme is currently tracking dozens of blog posts that have sprung up today regarding Twitter’s business model.

The most consistent phenomenon I’ve witnessed from observing web-culture for the past 12 years is this: When something new comes along and half the tech/new media geeks I know can’t live without it and the other half detest it — I get ready for a tsunami of “what’s the business model?” pontificating, followed by a ferocious chorus of, “Oh yea?”s.

Dave’s right. Making money is a business model. If creating (or buying) something that you can then sell for more than it took you to create (or buy) it, that’s a business model. The wider the spread between the cost and the sales price, the better the business model.

Bottomline: The folks who created Twitter are in the business of developing web products and, well, selling them. The top guy there created Blogger.com. He sold it to Google. Creating and selling Blogger was a business model — a great one. Does Blogger.com today have a viable business model? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way.)

Oh, yes, something else: The folks who created Twitter have created other things that no one found addictive — or even mildly helpful. Some people call such attempts that don’t work out failures. Smart people like Evan Williams know they are just part of the business model of making money.

Marshall Kirkpatrick explains a new service called Tweeterboard that analyzes data about users of Twitter.

Quote:

“While you can look at the number of followers and friends a person has on Twitter to get some idea of how much weight they carry, that’s only good for so much. So is a black-box algorithm, but there’s a variety of data available on Tweeterboard beyond simple ranking and points.”

Currently, there are about 2,000 Twitter users being tracked on Tweeterboard (here’s mine),

Speaking of Twitter, good luck to my Twitter-friend @susanreynolds (#9 on the Twitterboard Top 100) who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and is under-going surgery on Friday (she’s blogging her treatment journey here). Several of Susan’s Twitter friends have added “peas” to their avatars (the little photos or illustrations representing the user) in moral support of Susan. Why peas? Well, it’s a long story. Let’s just say, it’s one of those “you had to be there” things. Being Southern, I’ve added blackeyed peas to mine. Peas on earth, Susan.

[Note: I haven't actually stopped using Publishing 2.0 -- I'm happily addicted -- but you'll understand the reason for that subject line in a moment.]

My friend (and if he were not my friend, I’d be using some adjective like “John-Dvorak-wannabee“) Scott Karp, wrote a well-reasoned explanation of why he stopped using Twitter. The problem is, his (this is where John Dvorak comes to mind) tone and the construction of his essay seems a bit calculated to elicit incoming links from two groups of hardcore bloggers: those who now feel they must justify their obsession with Twitter — and those who are glad he’s confirming their belief that Twitter is a complete waste of time.*

In other words, Scott has provided the model for how to write a post that will shoot to number one on Techmeme.

I’m sure a clever coder could easily hack a “generator” version of the following, but here’s what I mean. Simply substitute a name of an over-hyped “social media” or “social application” fad (with some slight tweaks, it also works with names of events or, frankly, any product or activity you’re bored with) and you, too, can piss off enough people to hit the top of Techmeme. (Hint: And if you use the word Techmeme in the blank, who knows? Maybe you’ll become an instant A-Lister):

Why I Stopped Using [BLANK]

by [Insert Your Name Here]

There’s a lot of [BLANK] hype in the blogosphere today, and I’ve contributed plenty of my own [BLANK] hype in the past. So I thought it would be a good opportunity to offer some anti-hype, derived from my own experience using [BLANK] — an explanation of why I STOPPED using [BLANK].

For a period last summer, I was a [BLANK] addict — addict really is the right word. I found [BLANK] to be mesmerizing, which partly reflects the brilliance of the design and partly that I was following really interesting, insight, enjoyable people, whose random musings were worth following (and my high opinion of the people — many of whom read this blog, and whose blogs I read — remains unchanged).

But here’s the problem, and why I quit (with the requisite 12-step program, yadda, yadda):

[BLANK] is massive waste of time.

Let me immediately qualify that — it’s not that ALL of [BLANK] is a waste of time. It’s that TOO MUCH of [BLANK] is a massive waste of time. Some aspects are hugely valuable and well worth the time. There’s really interesting “conversation.” There’s connectedness. There’s discovery.

But the noise to signal ratio is WAY too high. And the temptation to [BLANK] for the sake of [BLANK]ing is WAY too high.

[It's not necessary, but you can insert a sentence here using terms from this list]

But the big problem was that I was paying attention to [BLANK] too often when there was something much higher yield I should have been paying attention too — especially work I needed to get done.

The web itself — Techmeme alone — is a huge blackhole of distraction. It’s hard enough to stay focused when you work on the web.

But [BLANK] has turned distraction into an art form. It’s like hanging out at a bar with a bunch of interesting people (some of whom are talking on their cellphones) and forgetting that you have to go home. Which, when done in moderation, is a very GOOD thing. But it was too hard to moderate [BLANK].

And so I decided that I needed to shut it off.

I’m not sure that this is a failing on the part of [BLANK] — perhaps its cup runneth over. But it does make me wonder whether it will ever catch on beyond geeks who thrive on spending massive quantities of their lives on the web. (And, yes, hi, my name is Scott and I’m a web geek — I speak from experience.)

[BLANK] shares much in common with Facebook and MySpace — socializing on steroids, round the clock, always on, with no limits or boundaries or clearly defined utility. Which, again, are not inherently bad, and can actually be very good.

I guess it’s a matter of personal choice (e.g. I don’t watch much TV), and what type of user an application wants to serve. For people like students and web geeks, who are already predisposed to sink a lot of time into the web, applications like [BLANK] and Facebook make a lot of sense.

For people who look to the web as a tool for efficiency rather than time wasting (e.g. people who use search instead of randomly surfing for what they want to find), the first generation of social apps my prove to be just playthings, rather than applications that make their lives easy and simpler (again, think about search as the archetypal web app).

That said, [BLANK] and Facebook are pioneers — proving grounds for technology that will evolve into highly useful applications (e.g. Google wasn’t the first search engine).

In many ways, the web has become the new TV, i.e. a way to veg out — [BLANK] and Facebook make that time wasting social, which is probably a good thing on balance. But it still sucks time away from “real life,” i.e. family and work and having time to spend with people IN PERSON.

I’ll add as an interesting footnote that although I haven’t [BLANK]ed for months, I continue to get new followers on [BLANK] every day — which is evidence that the network is expanding somewhat randomly and arbitrarily, rather than based on clear value (i.e. decisions about who to follow on [BLANK] are typically impulse).

So to all my [BLANK] friends — I’ll miss you…but not really. I read your blogs and you read mine, so I guess what I’ll really miss are your random musings. That is, those that you don’t blog. Well, you know what I mean.

That’s my story — and I’m blogging it rather than [BLANK]ing it.

UPDATE

Hmmm, well that seems to have struck a nerve.

One commentor objects to this being on the top of Techmeme, which of course has nothing to do with what one user of [BLANK] thinks, but rather many users of [BLANK] who either strongly agree or disagree with what I tried to articulate.

Many of the reactions (very few of which, I’ll observe, are less than 140 characters) strike me as similar to the reactions I got to my mobile web sucks post — the problem isn’t the technology, it’s that I’m a not a good user. If I were a better user, than I’d find more value.

And I don’t disagree with all of the comments and suggestions below about how [BLANK] can be useful and valuable — that’s how I got addicted.

The problem is that breakthrough technologies should make you feel smart, not dumb, make your life easier, not harder. I come at this not as industry analyst, but as an individual user who had a net negative user experience.

I was actually motivated to take the time to experiment with [BLANK], and try to figure out how to make it work. How much time do you think mainstream users (assuming that is [BLANK]’s ultimate market) will give it before they give up?

The lesson I’m looking to learn from experimenting with [BLANK], Facebook, and other apps, is how such applications become indispensable. I’ve heard a lot of good argumens for why [BLANK] has value — if properly calibrated — but not why it’s indispensable.

I got addicted to [BLANK], and then tried seeing if I could live without it. And I did just fine.

But if I tried living without search, email, IM, web bookmarking 0r news aggregators (Techmeme) — then I’d be in pain.

[BLANK] may be the first step on an evolutionary path to something indispensable, but for me, it’s just not there yet.

Dear Scott, Sorry.

*Personal observation: As with all good things, Twitter is best consumed in moderation. Except for brief periods every day or so, I monitor Twitter in an RSS newsreader rather than using Twitterific or the site, itself.