The Trouble with Twitter: Automated Tweets and Self-Publicity
For every virally successful social networking community that emerges, a set of unspoken, unwritten rules and expectations seems to arise with it. However more often than not the groundswell of user opinion fails to flow in a single direction, and controversy arises in the wake of differing usage habits.
The controversies result from the assumption and expectation that users will behave a certain way, and use the application a certain way. The trouble is not everyone shares these expectations, and when world’s collide there can be hurt feelings, disagreements, and shock-horror, even un-friending!
In the case of Twitter the controversy surrounds the topic of automated tweets and self-publicity. (NB: A single post to a Twitter account is called a Tweet.)
Of the literally dozens of 3rd party tools to emerge in the wake of the released Twitter API, perhaps the most controversial is the category that let’s users designate RSS feeds to be auto-posted to their Twitter accounts.
Using applications like Twitterfeed, users can nominate virtually any RSS source for circulation, including news sites, del.icio.us links, blogs, or websites. The Twitter account holder doesn’t have to be the original source of the material or author of the content, only the one who configures the data to be sent out as a Tweet.
On the surface this doesn’t seem like a really big deal - in fact to some it’s down right useful. The problem is, to some Twitter users, circulating automated Tweets is a cardinal sin. It’s seen as spamming unwanted content and basically abusing the power of the application.
A forum post on the Aussie Bloggers Forum echoed this sentiment when Gary Barber said:
“Just posting url blog posts is just rude. Even if “top” bloggers do it. Does not make it right. I will point out some of these “top” bloggers have come to twitter very late and hence are just in it for there own person gain. Sometimes twitter can really show you what people are really like. I guess that is the case with these top bloggers.”
His comment seems to suggest there are times when posting blog URLs is acceptable. The question is, when?
At what point does sharing your favourite links or particularly your own blog post, become spam? What is the frequency threshold below which automated Tweets and blog links are acceptable - or is it more of a matter of proportion. How many regular Tweets are required before an automated Tweet is seen as an interesting reference rather than a vile dose of unsolicited spam?
News sites are notorious examples of this phenomenon - and there are literally dozens of instances in Twitter. Users who follow these accounts are unexpectedly subjected to a stream of URL links to news articles that have been released that day. It is a truly overwhelming experience when it happens, and in my experience I haven’t followed them for long.
Yet in saying that the reality becomes clear: You are only subjected to Tweets by those you choose to follow. The ultimate control over what content you receive is held in the hands of the end-user, not those who circulate the content.
Furthermore, Twitter offers many different options for controlling whose updates you receive, and the method by which this occurs. For example, you can follow someone but not receive their updates. In this case if you receive Tweets via IM or SMS you won’t be aware of the contributions of those you are ignoring until you visit the web interface and browse back through the notification history.
As always though the trouble lay with the shades of gray. For example when you follow someone for whom the majority of posts are welcome content, but perhaps some of which you could do without, or alternatively you are the Twitter user interested in sharing your own blog posts, where do you draw the line?
Personally speaking, I only follow people whose input I value; and this does not apply to everyone who adds me as a contact. I see no point in following hundreds of people for the sake of having a lot of “friends.” Therefore more often than not if a link comes through from one of these people, I’ll take a look at it. Part of effective Twitter usage for me involves knowing who to add, and who not to.
Sure there are people who post an endless barrage of links and that’s it. So what, don’t follow them.
With that said there are some conventions that really should be followed when providing links - particularly a background on the site, post or story, and perhaps a title. A tiny URL link by itself is pretty useless and not likely to get read by me.
When it comes to what I circulate I try to follow the same convention. However I do also use Twitterfeed to circulate the posts from this blog as well. My rule of thumb is no more than one automated notification a day - even if I happen to make multiple contributions that day.
My motives for this were echoed by MetaWeb20, who said
“@mbogle I’d much rather get coolcatteacher twitterfeeds once a day then see some of the folk that use twitter as an IM. We choose to follow.“
Ultimately it comes down to motivation for use. I use Twitter as a networking tool for interacting with others who work in education and have an interest in emerging technology. This establishes a valuable collaborative network for location and dissemination of useful articles, ideas and discussion. Frequently this will come in the form of a blog post.
I feel confident in saying that the people who follow me are interested in what I have to say, otherwise they wouldn’t be following me. So I don’t see that it should matter whether my thoughts come as a 140 character Tweet, or the link to a 1,000 word blog post. This is certainly the way I think about those people that I follow.
Saturday, February 16th, 2008