Can I add you on twitter.com?

I am really intrigued by the idea, however only one of my friends is on Twitter.

I was wondering if anyone out there uses it, and would allow me the honour of adding them?

Regards.

Heh? What? What is “Twitter”?

It’s not one of those spam sites, is it?

Tripler
Hell, I’m already a SDMB member, what more do I need?

I was going to start the same thread today!

I’ll send you a PM with my twittername.

It’s a social networking gizmo. Probably the best way to explain it is to go to Twitter.com and watch the cute lil’ video they have on the main page.

I can’t get to it from work–filtered out. How is it any different than MySpace or ‘the Facebook’?

Tripler
Part-time Devil’s advocate.

The main difference between MySpace/Facebook & Twitter is that on Twitter, you don’t go set up a page and all that. You set up your account, and start typing in short (< 140 char) messages about what you’re doing at a given time, and it’s sent out to all your friends.

For those of us without endless time to spend screwing around with MySpace pages, it’s pretty nifty.

Of course, I’m of an age & sex where most of my friends can barely use email, so actually staying in contact with real people who I know via teh Interwebs is nigh on impossible. But that’s OK - I’m fine with staying in contact with all you virtual dopers instead. :smiley:

It’s a micro-blogging site. No penis-enlarging pills, Rolex replicas or medical degrees on offer.

Before you get involved with this, please watch this: LisaNova, Twitter Whore

You can add me - but if I find you irrelevant to my tweets, I’ll end up dropping you. I keep my tweets private for a reason (otherwise they’re indexed on Google, and when potential employers search for me, I don’t want them to get 25 (or more) pages of tweets.

Also, be warned: I can be prolific, I go to conferences and the tweet level goes up. I’ve also been known to twitter drunk while at said conferences. I will PM my name.

I’ve heard of Twitter. It sounds like a layer of hell to me. “What are you doing?” “What are you doing?” “What are you doing?” AAAAARRRGGHHH.

“This is what I’m doing now” broadcast over and over again to whoever happens to be interested. Yee haw.

Oblig

I actually have a professional network that’s grown on twitter. If you don’t know anything about it beyond the basic, then bug off. It’s not hurting you if others like it.

And the conversation is far beyond “what I’m doing now”, at least within my network.

It’d be helpful if you could educate us beyond the basic, since a lot of us have the same perception as blondebear, and we don’t mean to be snarky about it.

I’m getting the impression that it’s sort of like an inside-out chat room (you don’t join, it comes to you), or a message board without the copious verbiage.

I still use IRC , so I don’t know if I’m ready for “the Twitter.” :slight_smile:

I apologize for my snarkiness. If it works for anyone else, that’s really all that matters. It’s just not for me.

That didn’t come out right. I think that twitter is an interesting application, actually. I prefer to be less connected.

Fair enough, and I should add that I’m sensitive on this point because I recently had a colleague make the comment about “getting a life” in a way that I perceived as very snarky after they attended a voluntary session on 2.0 tools, but specifically tied it to Twitter (which I use) and Second Life (which I can’t stand :slight_smile: ).

First, a slideshow from last December: Twitter is Like (some of which are only relevant to librarians).

Here’s my twitter story and why it works for me:

I am an early adopter for a lot of 2.0 tools. I resisted Twitter for a long time - it seemed voyeuristic. As others in the profession started using it, I started building my network - and if you’re a techie librarian, you know the names that I was able to connect with and have conversations with.

Last summer I moved across the country - Twitter helped me stay connected during the move while I was settling into the new job, in a place were I really felt like I didn’t fit in for a long time.

This coming fall, I’m presenting with people at a national professional conference - we all ‘met’ on twitter. We have conversations during the day. Sometimes those conversations are mundane and about things like hookers and blow, or bacon. Other times it’s “hey, I’m struggling with this reference question - anyone have any ideas” or even “I’m working on a Drupal install. Help!!” 9/10 times, there’s someone who can help with those questions. It’s a community of techie librarians who are using it to help each other - and then when we all happen to be at conferences, we get together.

The thing for the “twitterbrarians” is that we do have, at a minimum, some level of common interest beyond twitter. If no one you know is on it, I can see how it wouldn’t be interesting. If there are people you know on it, well, then it can be fun - when that conversation develops.

I think of it as “Blogging For Those With Short Attention Spans”. Traditional blogging doesn’t work with me because of my Perfection-Procrastination Spiral: I put off writing my blog updates until a fictional later moment when I’ll have more time to really “write it properly”. Of course, the longer I wait, the more I have to put in it and therefore the longer it will take to write, and the less likely I am to find the time in which to write it.

With Twitter, I don’t fall into a PPS because it’s very easy to find the time to write a 140 character update. It may not be as detailed or as meaningful but I actually get it done.

I favourite’d one of my own Tweets last year because I wanted to remember a random moment that I had of feeling blissfully happy. I never would have posted to a traditional blog because I would have spent so much time fussing over expressing it just right that I would have lost the moment. However it took only minutes to whittle it down to 140 characters summarising the key elements of the moment - enough to invoke the memory without over-explaining it.

I’m 99% certain I can’t do it from work. Will check, but doubtful.