- Joined
- Jul 1, 2001
- Messages
- 31,154
- Points
- 0
What's more interesting on that graph is that Facebook is not the sausage fest that AZ is... :lol:
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Facebook Twitter shares.
- Thread starter wa-loaf
- Start date
severine
New member
gmcunni
Active member
Women are naturally chatty... just not necessarily about skiing.
i was going to say more social
gmcunni
Active member
semi-serious question.. i FB but don't twitter.. how does AZ integrate with that? if a thread is tweeted does every new entry end up on subscriber's phones?
billski
Active member
I assume that's the same age group that balked when internet first became available in homes, as well as when home computers became the norm.
The data you quoted is almost a year old. I'm not saying there are necessarily 5m people in your age bracket using FB, but a lot can change in a year.
Yep, we're growing, but it's hard to tell how many of these are new versus a statistical transition to a new bracket.
except for grandpa powhunter. he grew up with the pony express and telegrams....
Yep, we're growing, but it's hard to tell how many of these are new versus a statistical transition to a new bracket.
Looks like a good place to meet women. Here's a piece of info from my companies research for comparison's sake:
Source Although most of you won't have access.
So your age group needs to reach approx 37% of the fb population to be fully represented.
billski
Active member
This is an interesting discussion. My anecdotal comparison is against my social group, which are people predominantly in the 55+ group. Statistical grouping always has its limits.
I don't see how I've contradicted myself - anecdotal evidence of insufficient sample size is statistically invalid. I indicated that most people I know don't do Facebook, which was a response to an assertion that another person knows more people who are. My point is that neither of us has enough data to draw a conclusion unless our sample size is broad enough.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2001
- Messages
- 31,154
- Points
- 0
If a thread is "tweeted", a link is added to that Twitterers (a word?) page and anyone following them can see it. It's not dynamic enough to update each time a new post is added to a thread.
All new threads and news articles are already tweeted to the AZ twitter account here:
http://twitter.com/alpinezone
The current 590 followers will then see it. I don't Twitter personally either. Kinda think it's too simplistic, but I guess people enjoy it.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2001
- Messages
- 31,154
- Points
- 0
I know what you meant. It just read weird.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2001
- Messages
- 31,154
- Points
- 0
:lol: Grandpa powhunter is a bit of anomoly. Steve-O turns the big 5-0 this year (gotta come up with a way to celebrate). Talk about a guy who doesn't let his age define him. Loves to rip bumps and is still getting better at it. Also, probably one of the most genuinely funny guys I know.
gmcunni
Active member
as a non-twit (well, depends who you ask) the aplinezone stuff seems hard to follow. have you considered (is it even possible) to seperate news from threads?
any of you 590 twits have a comment on this?
Count me in that group. Still holding off on the twitter thing though. One social networking site is enough for me...
andyzee
New member
I wanted to start myface.com, but it was already taken.
polski
New member
Just getting to this thread though this is a topic I've been meaning to raise, as I've been fairly active in social networking for a while now and even make some consulting coin analyzing social media. Apologies in advance for the length ...
I think social media definitely have their place among modern communications tools. For example, Facebook is better than email or other platforms for multimedia networking and for reconnecting with long lost friends (though FB's recent anti-privacy tweaks and revamp of their feed structure have me using the service a lot less now). If you follow the right people on Twitter, and if they know how to use it effectively, you can stay well-informed on subjects of interest with minimal time investment. Etc.
But I strongly dislike automated cross-pollination across platforms - message boards to FB or Twitter, FB to Twitter and vice-versa, and so on - because it ignores the substantially different norms of each platform.
Most notably, Twitter famously has a 140-character limit on tweets. When the first post in a new thread here is relayed there, it displays the first ~120 characters from the subject line and post + ellipsis + link to the thread. As you can see from the AZ Twitter feed there are a lot of partial thoughts. Even if often there's enough to get the gist of the new thread, it strikes me as a misuse of Twitter. It's sorta as if you picked up the phone, called someone, read an entire letter to them and hung up. Just not how it's done.
I see a lot of people make the reverse mistake, linking Twitter accounts to Facebook or LinkedIn etc. You use Twitter for fundamentally different reasons than those services. (As an aside, I think it can be professionally stupid if not dangerous to auto-relay every tweet as a LinkedIn status update.)
There are other quirks with assisted cross-platform relays. For example, Facebook still is pretty primitive in how it lets you post links to outside content on your Wall or in messages. If I wanted to share this thread to FB, this is what the link is going to show:
with no way to edit that content beyond saying something about it in the status update that would appear above it. The link doesn't even display the individual thread title, and in a private message you can't change the subject so it too will display only "forums.alpinezone.com." This all ends up being fairly recipient-hostile.
Using the AZ Twitter share button, this gets pumped out to my "What's happening" box:
If someone simply tweets that, it's rude because it's not giving followers any indication what the tweet is about, aside from being an AZ thread. And because it doesn't use a URL-shortening service it chews up 51 out of the available 140 characters, whereas something like bit.ly would get it down under 20 - so that's hostile to the person trying to be a good Twitter citizen by packing maximum punch into the available space.
Going in the other direction, many ski areas make the mistake of linking their FB pages to Twitter, so every time they post a FB status update it gets tweeted. One of two things happens: A tweet is <140 characters including a link back to the FB page, which provides no additional information (user wastes time clicking on link); or the tweet is >140 characters and you force the user to click the link to get the complete thought. It's rude social networking behavior either way. (I have tweeted my gripe about this but nobody listened ...)
Anyway, I've gone a wee bit over 140 characters here
... I guess my question for Greg is what are your objectives in using Facebook and Twitter? I'm of the opinion that what you get out of them depends on what effort you put into them - ongoing human effort, not some one-time programming.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2001
- Messages
- 31,154
- Points
- 0
Some good points there, polski. I haven't figured out a way to auto-shorten the URLs in the Twitter feed through bit.ly or something. This was my quick and dirty solution. I can see the cross-posting concern between Twitter and Facebook too. I'm just not totally versed on the Twitter thing, I guess. But it really is up to the follower as to whether they find it useful or not. We get a fair amount of referrals from Twitter, so some people do.
Good point about the Facebook share. I added the thread title.
Good point about the Facebook share. I added the thread title.
polski
New member
The automated tweets of new threads do convert the links to bit.ly though ... not that I want to encourage automated tweeting ;-)
Last edited:
I don't twitter, or tweet, or whatever it is, no need for me. One thing I hate are those URL shortening services, I never click on them. If I can't see where the link is going to take me then I have no interest in clicking on it. One of my facebook friends is constantly posting his twitter posts to his facebook page, aside from the fact that they're full of all sorts of abbreviations and other crap I have no interest in figuring out, they always have all these shortened links in them. I have no idea WTF he's always linking to since I won't click on them...
If I'm going to converse on the internet I'm going to use full and real words, for the most part, and regular old links. A few extra characters isn't going to kill anyone.
polski
New member
Valid point; in fact some viruses have been spread via Twitter this way.
Some services (bit.ly for one) do allow you to customize the last part of the shortened URL to make it more descriptive, like (fake example) http://bit.ly/AZ-Twitter .... though obviously the more descriptive you make it, the longer it becomes.
Exhibit A for inappropriate use of Twitter-to-FB auto-relay.
On Twitter, it will (well, it can break a tweet). That doesn't make Twitter bad, just different. It's not for everyone but I've gotten some good value from it.
What I meant is I don't see the need to limit characters, it's not like we're back in the days of 2400 baud...
Too me it seems like twitter is like texting to all of your friends at once...
Not to mention 'tweeting' sounds way too stupid for me to ever use, but that's just me.
Similar threads
