Twitter Tips: It's A Bird, It's A Bird

"What am I doing? I am talking to an empty telephone, because there was a dead man at the end of this fucking line!"

- Robert De Niro in Heat.

thinking about connections
120 is the New 140: How to Build Relationships on Twitter
Looking for Mr. Goodtweet: How to Pick Up Followers on Twitter
My First 7 Days on Twitter
Facebook, Twitter, and Blogs - the big three Right now, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are where it's at. Add a blog to the equation and you have the complete solution for communication with the maximum number of people.



I have been on Twitter only a few weeks (I Get Twitter), so I don't claim to be an authority, but my hunch is that Twitter is all things to all people. It is what you make it. But I think it is obvious Twitter is a fundamental internet application. Google became a verb because search is the ultimate fundamental internet application. Email is a fundamental internet application. News is basic. Facebook is a fundamental internet application. Twitter is the new kid on the block. It is basic, it is fundamental. It will catch on. It will stick around.



There can't be tips. There are no tips for search. There are no tips for how to use your Facebook account. I think the same is true for Twitter. There are no tips, really. But I wish to share a few that work for me, and I suspect might work for a few others like me. But I make no claim to universal appeal. There is no such thing. On Twitter you create the ultimate niche.

But as to tips, these work for me.

(1) Become A User, Not An Addict, But Do Become A User

I can see how easy it is to get carried away. You get a few hundred followers, or even a hundred, and you can fall in the trap of thinking you are finally the celebrity you always deserved to be, but until now it had been the world's loss to not have discovered you. Use Twitter in moderation. This is like having an email account. You are not on email all day.

But knowledge workers are on email all day. And many people have successfully integrated Twitter into what they do. Twitter is how they broadcast themselves to the world. And many of them have followers in the tens of thousands. They are not addicts, they are avid users.

(2) Be Yourself

Guy Kawasaki is the number one name on Twitter but I am suspicious of his number one advice, which is, follow everyone who follows you. Then, what's the point? I don't think he follows 50,000 people. But he follows 50,000 people in hopes 50,000 people will follow him. And many do, and all the glory to them, and I am one. He usually posts links to news items that often look interesting, and sometimes I click through. But Kawasaki has a website to promote and he has a brand name to establish: his name. And so follow as many people as you can if you share his goals. Why not? But if your Twitter account is like your email account to you, then don't.

(3) Take It Easy

Only follow people you intend to follow, people you know, people who are famous. Unfollow people you no longer wish to follow. And don't worry about how many people follow you. If they want to, they will. Glory is not in the numbers. Few is not bad. Many is not necessarily good. There are zombie followers who add you in hopes you will add them and it will look like they have a lot of followers, but who don't really "follow" you. They don't read a word of what you have to say.

(4) Respect Your Followers

Imagine your followers as people genuinely interested in what you are doing, what you might be reading. Let your personality shine through your Twitter posts. If you link to a lot of news on Africa, I am going to think you are really into Africa. And if you really are, that helps me get to know you better, if I am someone interested in getting to know you better.

(5) Don't Feel Obliged

It is okay to not tweet every day, it is okay to not tweet every hour. Pace yourself. And it is okay to put out 30 tweets in an hour. Too. You decide. Don't feel obliged.

(6) Celebrity Tweets

I like the Kevin Rose model. He founded Digg. That makes him a celebrity. He has over 100,000 followers, but he follows only about 100, and he posts sparingly. On the other hand you have the CEO of Mashable, he posts several per hour, all day. But then it is because he mostly posts links to his own website. And that is good too. That does not make him a fake.

I also want to end up with 100,000 followers, but I want that to happen because my tech startup became a grand success. And I want to post more often than Kevin Rose, and less often than Mashable. And I only wish to follow people I really wish to follow, and so I wish to keep that number as close to 100 as possible. I have no desire to "follow" 50,000 people. I don't think that is humanly possible.

How not to scare away a celebrity? Mitch Kapor started following me within days of my showing up at the site and he only follows a few hundred, so I knew it was genuine, but I celebrated the event in a grand way, and then he was no longer following me: Mitch Kapor Now Following Me On Twitter.

http://twitter.com/paramendra/statuses/1204544455

Twitter Enterprise



A business model for Twitter: Pay up | Outside the Lines - CNET News
The three business models that make Twitter a billion-dollar...
11 Business Plans For Twitter

I think Twitter is going to make a ton of money. There are people who have ridiculed it as a site that is hot, but guess what, it is not making any money. Google did not make any money for years and years, but anyone who used Google in the early years, or most people, they could tell it was a great application.

The way for Twitter to make big bucks is by having a Twitter, and another Twitter Enterprise that big brand names pay for, that has a greater number of functionalities.

NY Tech MeetUp Mailing List Web 5.0 Controversy

OMGICU



I have been active with this mailing list only since the last MeetUp (NY Tech MeetUp: 02/03/09), been barely a week, and so far I have not got into the thick of it much, but right now I logged in to look at today's daily digest, and boom, there it was splattered all over the place. Before proceeding to read all the emails, I took this screen shot. Seven of the 20 emails are about my Web 5.0 post.


I am going to read all the emails, and I am going to respond. But before that I wish to respond to an email from Michael Mellinger. (Conceptually Diligent: Web 5.0 Is Repackaging Hello)

In his last email Mike wondered if there will be a Web 6.0, and a Web 7.0.

Web 5.0 And The Speed Of Light

In physics it is said nothing in the universe moves faster than the speed of light. In my classification, Web 5.0 is the same way. There is no Web 5.1, there is no Web 6.0, there is no Web 7.0. Web 5.0 is the ultimate.

Web 5.0 Is Da Bomb
Competing For the Web 3.0 Definition
Conceptually Diligent: Web 5.0 Is Repackaging Hello
Defining Web 4.0
Web 5.0: Face Time
A Web 3.0 Manifesto


Clarifications

I think earlier classification systems have made the fundamental error of thinking of the web only as the software behind the websites. In my classification system the web is the software, the hardware, the connectivity, and, most important, the people, the netizens. How can you miss the people after Web 2.0?

Read

Now let me go read and answer other queries and curiosities.

Nicolas VDB: Stay tuned, web 36.0 coming soon on Paramendra's blog

Tim Mattison: The whole original post feels almost computer generated. I'm so confused. http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

James Gillmore: I think the message to be taken away from Paramendra's posts should be a recognition of the enthusiasm, passion and idealism for a subject matter we obviously all love or we wouldn't be here. It doesn't need to illicit jaded "web 2.+ is so cliche" responses. However, Paramendra, I think what you're saying is far from reality and how things will actually pan out--and it's a little to poetic for a lot of us. It's also not very specific. I'd love to see a post from you about simply what technical advancements on and offline you forecast in 2009 and 2010, regardless of what point oh they fall into. What are your predictions for the next 2 years?

Andrew: wahahahaha *snort* *sniffle* ...... ahhhh PB, thanks for the Monday chuckles, Chuckles.

Matthew Zito: Glad we cleared that up. Unfortunately for you, I've already invented the New Web 1.0, which will supplant all versions of Web x.x

Andrew to Matthew Zito: Sorry, but we only recognize Web 1.0 as defined in ISO/IEC 3282-1:1993.

My Reaction

I guess it has not been the controversy I first thought it might be. There is irrational, illogical derision and dismissal. There is mild amusement, but no real technical critique. I should learn to ignore most of the fluff. Perhaps this is not the right venue to be expecting a discussion.

Creating Ground

There are people who don't buy into the Web 2.0 term itself. At one point Google CEO Eric Schmidt was one of them. He dismissed Web 2.0 as a marketing term. I would have to fundamentally disagree. Web 2.0 is very real to me. Web 2.0 was when the web got populated, it became alive, it became dynamic.

And then there are those who think of Web 1.0 as read, Web 2.0 as read-write, and Web 3.0 as read-write-execute. That is a fairly elegant classification. It is not right or wrong, I feel it is misguided. It only makes sense if you think of the web only as the software that powers websites, which I don't.

I look at the software, the hardware, the connectivity, and the netizens, like I said above. There are four components. What others might propose to be Web 3.0, I have proposed to be Web 2.1.

You could disagree with my basic premise and argue but the web is only about software. Or you could take my holistic approach and come up with a different classification system. But I have not seen any so far, and this mailing list perhaps is not the place to look.