Comments on: Whispering Tweets http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/ This can all be made better. Ready? Begin. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:18:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: The Pied Pipes http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-91652 The Pied Pipes Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:19:40 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-91652 What about just 'sh message-receiver message text in here...'? or w recipient etc? Also, I love Fabricio's [group] bracket idea. Although it's two characters instead of one (@group) it's different from the current @ reply Stephen's # tagging idea's a win too pipes What about just ’sh message-receiver message text in here…’?

or w recipient etc?

Also, I love Fabricio’s [group] bracket idea. Although it’s two characters instead of one (@group) it’s different from the current @ reply

Stephen’s # tagging idea’s a win too

pipes

]]> By: Library clips :: Groups : Twitter, Pownce and Jaiku :: September :: 2007 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-91344 Library clips :: Groups : Twitter, Pownce and Jaiku :: September :: 2007 Mon, 03 Sep 2007 01:00:28 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-91344 [...] Factory Joe’s take on this is similar to Pownce, but you are only allowed to make one set for your inner circle. It’s kind of a catch 22, we don’t want to be flooded with all these replies (@) that don’t concern us (people you follow that are having conversations with others), but then if we have lots of sets, we will see heaps less replies that don’t concern us, actually we may only see replies that only concern us, this then lessens the eavesdropping, overhearing type of viral conversation that makes Twitter so unique. [...] [...] Factory Joe’s take on this is similar to Pownce, but you are only allowed to make one set for your inner circle. It’s kind of a catch 22, we don’t want to be flooded with all these replies (@) that don’t concern us (people you follow that are having conversations with others), but then if we have lots of sets, we will see heaps less replies that don’t concern us, actually we may only see replies that only concern us, this then lessens the eavesdropping, overhearing type of viral conversation that makes Twitter so unique. [...]

]]> By: Amie http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89699 Amie Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:20:22 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89699 And of course, I should have read this post first before posting on your # post. ::headdesk:: Carry on, carry on! And of course, I should have read this post first before posting on your # post. ::headdesk::

Carry on, carry on!

]]> By: Fabricio Zuardi http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89658 Fabricio Zuardi Sun, 26 Aug 2007 06:10:56 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89658 I see where you come from, and I should probably wait for the next post regarding channels/tags/groups as well to tie up everything, but here is my impressions about the issue so far: The bang ! doesn't feel very natural to me, it sounds more like a command prefix than a whisper, like in !rot13 foobar /msg can work, or even (if you don't want to specify the recipients) /pvt or @friends (since twitter.com/friends is not an user) could work although it might be too much to type (the 1 character approach of the ! proposal wins here) some examples using this alternative: /msg @foo @bar can any of you guys bring me a coffee please? /pvt I am going to have ice cream with my kids on the place X, anyone wants to join? /msg [work] ok, who got my red stapler? this is not funny. I am currently using brackets with [pt-br] to my Portuguese tweets because it was what seemed right to me, like in a prefix on the subject of emails coming from different mailing lists, so this is what I use personally for grouping/tagging although the # is fine too... I see where you come from, and I should probably wait for the next post regarding channels/tags/groups as well to tie up everything, but here is my impressions about the issue so far:

The bang ! doesn’t feel very natural to me, it sounds more like a command prefix than a whisper, like in

!rot13 foobar

/msg can work, or even (if you don’t want to specify the recipients) /pvt or @friends (since twitter.com/friends is not an user) could work although it might be too much to type (the 1 character approach of the ! proposal wins here)

some examples using this alternative:

/msg @foo @bar can any of you guys bring me a coffee please?

/pvt I am going to have ice cream with my kids on the place X, anyone wants to join?

/msg [work] ok, who got my red stapler? this is not funny.

I am currently using brackets with [pt-br] to my Portuguese tweets because it was what seemed right to me, like in a prefix on the subject of emails coming from different mailing lists, so this is what I use personally for grouping/tagging although the # is fine too…

]]> By: Chris Messina http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89650 Chris Messina Sun, 26 Aug 2007 05:01:34 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89650 @Stephen: you're going to like my next post. ;) I should have been more specific... you don't preface a groupname with the bang... you simply preface your message and it goes to that inner circle. You only get ONE. This is not Pownce's friend sets... this is not a heavy management feature. It <strong>does not</strong> follow that if you have one group of inner circle friends that you should be able to create more... that's what channel tags are for. ;) More to come... @Stephen: you’re going to like my next post. ;)

I should have been more specific… you don’t preface a groupname with the bang… you simply preface your message and it goes to that inner circle. You only get ONE. This is not Pownce’s friend sets… this is not a heavy management feature. It does not follow that if you have one group of inner circle friends that you should be able to create more… that’s what channel tags are for. ;)

More to come…

]]> By: Stephen Collins http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89630 Stephen Collins Sun, 26 Aug 2007 02:11:11 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89630 I'll join the throng in agreeing that this idea has legs. The ability to effectively d an agreed circle of closer contacts is a compelling one. What this does, of course, is create the concept of a de facto group, pushing Twitter closer to Pownce in that regard. I don't think I've had Pownce open for around three weeks now, as an aside. But if you create one group, it won't be long until you want another or several more groups, so you'll need to do this: !workmates my boss sucks !drinkingbuddies more beer !family home late, have dinner without me This introduces another layer of complexity where you need to assign your followers to discrete groupings. I've barely done this in the new Skype release with my hundred-odd contacts. I have similar volume on Twitter as I'm not as well-connected as Chris who has the problem of cherrypicking over 600 people he follows to add them to groups. Also, with your #something for tagging or grouping you might get: #barcampblock !workmates this session rocks So, to everyone at BarCampBlock in the Group of workmates gets the whisper. I think both are awesome ideas, I'm just not sure how manageable they are going to be. I’ll join the throng in agreeing that this idea has legs. The ability to effectively d an agreed circle of closer contacts is a compelling one.

What this does, of course, is create the concept of a de facto group, pushing Twitter closer to Pownce in that regard. I don’t think I’ve had Pownce open for around three weeks now, as an aside.

But if you create one group, it won’t be long until you want another or several more groups, so you’ll need to do this:

!workmates my boss sucks
!drinkingbuddies more beer
!family home late, have dinner without me

This introduces another layer of complexity where you need to assign your followers to discrete groupings. I’ve barely done this in the new Skype release with my hundred-odd contacts. I have similar volume on Twitter as I’m not as well-connected as Chris who has the problem of cherrypicking over 600 people he follows to add them to groups.

Also, with your #something for tagging or grouping you might get:

#barcampblock !workmates this session rocks

So, to everyone at BarCampBlock in the Group of workmates gets the whisper.

I think both are awesome ideas, I’m just not sure how manageable they are going to be.

]]> By: ted rheingold http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89615 ted rheingold Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:04:36 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89615 Personally, I have always had my twitter status set to private, meaning I could never use any of the widgets or the like. My feeling was twitters were my message to friends, not followers or, strangers, or worse search engines and archives. I think a whisper option would be a *great* enhancement for to suppress the publicization (yep, I just made that word up) of the rare twitter that actually is just for my friends eyes only. Great idea! Regarding groups, I haven;t gone to the effort of setting them up on Pownce, but I could easily see having a group of indie rock friends, a group of electronica friends, a group of gag video friends. While I agree with Lane that exclusive circles of distribution are lame, my goal with Groups would be to not bore certain friends with certain topics. My biggest problem with Twitter are the all or nothing broadcast options and having to block people not because I don't like them but they message too often about topics that do not hold my interest .... Whew, I seem to have some feelings on this topic ;> Personally, I have always had my twitter status set to private, meaning I could never use any of the widgets or the like. My feeling was twitters were my message to friends, not followers or, strangers, or worse search engines and archives.

I think a whisper option would be a *great* enhancement for to suppress the publicization (yep, I just made that word up) of the rare twitter that actually is just for my friends eyes only. Great idea!

Regarding groups, I haven;t gone to the effort of setting them up on Pownce, but I could easily see having a group of indie rock friends, a group of electronica friends, a group of gag video friends. While I agree with Lane that exclusive circles of distribution are lame, my goal with Groups would be to not bore certain friends with certain topics. My biggest problem with Twitter are the all or nothing broadcast options and having to block people not because I don’t like them but they message too often about topics that do not hold my interest ….

Whew, I seem to have some feelings on this topic ;>

]]> By: Kelly Sims http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89613 Kelly Sims Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:54:54 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89613 I like the implementation of the bang, but I'm struggling with the "inner circle" part. I can see how instances such as Lane mentioned in your link would be very useful, but using closed groups feels wrong. This is something that needs to be addressed though, and I'm glad to see it being discussed! I like the implementation of the bang, but I’m struggling with the “inner circle” part. I can see how instances such as Lane mentioned in your link would be very useful, but using closed groups feels wrong. This is something that needs to be addressed though, and I’m glad to see it being discussed!

]]> By: william http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89611 william Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:30:42 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89611 Because i just don't see a need to use both if one does everything i'd like it to do? I dunno :P As more of these social sites come it is starting to become a full time job just to manage them. It'd be great if either Pownce OR Twitter could adopt the distinguishing features of the other so I didn't have to update both. Because i just don’t see a need to use both if one does everything i’d like it to do? I dunno :P As more of these social sites come it is starting to become a full time job just to manage them. It’d be great if either Pownce OR Twitter could adopt the distinguishing features of the other so I didn’t have to update both.

]]> By: Chris Messina http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89609 Chris Messina Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:14:30 +0000 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/whispering-tweets/#comment-89609 @eric: I must not have been clear. My whisper is not simply a direct message sent to everyone; that would defeat the point. In my proposal, for those whose timelines are public, a whisper would allow you to send private tweets to a <em>small number</em> of your friends -- not <em>all</em> of them. For example, you might have 50 people who you're following, but maybe only 5 coworkers that you want to send messages to. Rather than send that message to your whole list of friends as direct messages, whispers would show up in those small group of friends' timelines -- not as direct messages. You're right that there's little different between “d factoryjoe i can hear you” and “@factoryjoe ! i can hear you”. The latter would be visible by the sender's inner circle and the @recipient. But you're right, that part of the proposal is probably unnecessary. My goal is not to clutter up the system or invent new conventions; again, the bang was taken from Dodgeball (in form if not in function). The intention of this proposal was to make it possible for people with public streams to be able to have some kind of private tweet functionality without going totally private... you'll see in my next post how this functionality will make more sense in the context of Twitter channels. @eric: I must not have been clear.

My whisper is not simply a direct message sent to everyone; that would defeat the point. In my proposal, for those whose timelines are public, a whisper would allow you to send private tweets to a small number of your friends — not all of them. For example, you might have 50 people who you’re following, but maybe only 5 coworkers that you want to send messages to. Rather than send that message to your whole list of friends as direct messages, whispers would show up in those small group of friends’ timelines — not as direct messages.

You’re right that there’s little different between “d factoryjoe i can hear you” and “@factoryjoe ! i can hear you”. The latter would be visible by the sender’s inner circle and the @recipient. But you’re right, that part of the proposal is probably unnecessary.

My goal is not to clutter up the system or invent new conventions; again, the bang was taken from Dodgeball (in form if not in function). The intention of this proposal was to make it possible for people with public streams to be able to have some kind of private tweet functionality without going totally private… you’ll see in my next post how this functionality will make more sense in the context of Twitter channels.

]]>