Matt, I tried twitter, and it doesn’t make any sense.  I don’t like it. And I’m not that curious about what you’re doing all the time.

But it’s exactly like Facebook satus without the rest of Facebook. What’s not to make sense?

I admit that the web interface is obnoxious to use, but I don’t use it. There’s a Mac app that makes it a lot easier to use, but I’m not sure if there’s a Windows equivalent or not. I’m sure somebody probably made one.

It’s much more than just “status” updates. Most Twitter users go way beyond that and use it as sort of a mini blog.

I tend to agree with Elizabeth on this. I think that the fad that is Twitter won’t last long, especially with their consistent bandwidth problems. I think it is an idea that should be a feature of something - not its own standalone. The substantive information that is gained from status messages on either Facebook or Twitter is next to nill, since no one tells what they’re really doing all the time and most people hardly ever update. In fact, scrolling through my Facebook list of friends (ok, relatives), you and Adina are about the only ones that post anything at all. I know I posted something, but I think it puts me in Denver and I’ve been back for several days now. Actually, went to Denver again since then, so it would’ve been right at that point…

I guess I’m stuck using both, then.

The bandwidth problems Twitter has had in the past (haven’t seen it for a couple of weeks at least) are due to the exponential growth of usage of the service. They’re finding all the weak points in the scalability of their system.

I think you misunderstand what the Twitter service is supposed to be. Substantive content isn’t really the point.

But that’s <span class="caps">OK.</span> If everyone appreciated the concept, they’d have even more scalability problems. I’ll just have to leave it for my current batch of geeky online-only friends.

No seriously. If they’re really “friends”, why aren’t they just using <span class="caps">AIM,</span> Yahoo, etc.? It’s one of those things that seems to be just technology for technology’s sake. I’m above average on the “geek” scale, but I’m just not getting it. All I’m seeing here is an acceptable form of voyeurism and a fad concept for techies with the practical relevance of a <span class="caps">WWJD </span>bracelet. What other point is there?

Now, I would feel pretty cool if I could put top notch tech bloggers like John Gruber on my friend list so that maybe, just maybe, they might feign interest in something I’m doing. Man, I shouldn’t be so grouchy today. It’s actually a good day!

Status: Nathan is is is celebrating a new job, my oldest’s 6th b-day, and Earth Day. Peace, maaaan.

It’s about psychological overhead (not sure if I just made that term up or not). You may want to broadcast something to the world, but it’s not important enough or long enough to write a blog entry about.

You also don’t have to start a conversation (implied by IM). The other people don’t have to be online at the time to see what you wrote.

It’s kind of creating it’s own communication space at the intersection of blogs, <span class="caps">IM, </span>and email. It does things none of these can do, and it doesn’t do things that these can do. There’s overlap, but also something new. They’re like intersecting circles. They cover some of the same area, without duplicating exactly the same functions.

You also lose the implied “soandso is” that Facebook has. You have to write your Facebook status entries in a way that follows that is. Not so with Twitter.

While many Twitter posts are about what you’re doing, they aren’t all. Sometimes you have conversations, sometimes you just broadcast thoughts. The most interesting posts are usually not the ones about what someone is doing, although those can be interesting too if they’re more than just “going poop” or “eating breakfast.”

Ok, just need the check number now. You know, the check Twitter gave you…

I’m just playin’.

This is just a gravatar test.