LOL. Just stuck it to those Luddite knobs on the blog #backmeup

(Insert winking icon)

It is similar to most things. Useful if used wisely. Sadly, I couldn't use it wisely so I de-activated. Ditto Facebook. I am disconnected.

http://www.stateofsearch.com/how-to-recognize-twitter-bots-6-signals-to-...

(haven't yet gone to see if botornot.com has been taken, one feels it should be).

As an aside, how long ago would it have to have been before none of us could have identified the meaning of the present discussion without a clue ? 3 yrs ? 5 yrs ? 10 yrs ?

Future shock, eh ?

I've had use both Facebook and Twitter. Facebook seems pretty awful to me, and I was going to close it down, but my daughter insists that it's a useful tool. However, I'm coming to the conclusion that Twitter has some very positive qualities. It's great if you like breaking news. It's a force for democracy: to have Jon Snow telling you that he's interviewing a cabinet minister about a subject and asking you to tweet questions, is opening up an otherwise closed door. I've had tweets from people I admire, saying positive things about me, and that's a bonus for creative people who are always plagued by self doubt. And some people are simply very witty and funny (Arthur Smith is a hoot). It's also a good discipline to get a message across in 140 characters, not unlike writing a 2min 30secs song. I like it, the more I use it.

it's not just a way to shout at the radio/television and ensure that more people hear you than just your long suffering family ?

That's a relief.

but I do enjoy dropping in whenever I can. When I'm abroad I find it's a great way of feeling connected. I could get by without it but I like the fact that I don't have to.

I hadn't noticed anyone criticising Twitter as a medium. It's just a tool, as are some of the people who use it.

Twitter = good. Talking about people behind their backs = a force for evil.

When people used to communicate with each other by letter I don't remember that paper was referred to as a 'force for evil'. Twitter is what you make it. I got bored with Stephen Fry so I unfollowed him. Eamonn Forde makes me chuckle a lot (I am literally *on a bus*) and then laugh out loud (he WILL get himself arrested for photographing people on the train!)so I stick with him. I follow a few of the Massive, a few journos, a few musos and a few mates. James Pearce tweeting from the trial of the Pakistani cricketers (and, today, Harry Redknapp's trial) is a brilliant use of the medium. Twitter was invented for Danny Baker. So, stop stressing everyone!
BTW, great choice of track. Along with 'It's My Life' and 'Give It Up' this is in the Holy Trinity of Talk Talk tracks.

Still fighting my way around it and trying to decide if it’s worth my while. Like many applications these days it comes as a blank shell with little guidance to a new user. It sounds great the way Drakey describes it and I admire her networking abilities and the experience that enables her to self police.

My problem is that a majority of the people I know and need to communicate with, are not on it. Interestingly, it rarely gets a mention at work, none of my family seem bothered and the only circles I mix in that do take an interest are connected with this blog. It’s that lack of a starting position that limits its relevance to me.

I do use it to follow various sporting links and indeed follow a few interesting people in the media and entertainment world. I believe I am able to find out about train problems (usually while I’m experiencing them, but it’s a start!) and I have found out about local events that I may otherwise been unaware of.

Without stereotyping unduly, I wonder if it appeals more to certain groups than others. My 17 year old daughter only joined because I did, and none of her friends are on it. Her generation is still cheering for facebook.

At the other end of the scale, people my age are beginning to accept that there are alternatives to email, but texting and blogging on forums is still state of the art. The boundaries are clear and easily understood. Maybe Twitter appeals more to the 30 to 40 age bracket. (No evidence to support this other than personal observation.)

I enjoy contributing to the relatively safe environment that this forum provides. I think that the community has been diluted somewhat by other communication methods like twitter. That's clearly the way of things, and there's no avoiding it.

I’m genuinely open to persuasion on this but I think I have more than enough information coming at me from all sides.

Anyway, by the time I get the hang of twitter, all you buggers will have moved onto something else that will redefine the word “baffling”. I’ve seen a few come and go. I used to work in a BT Telex exchange for gawds sake. Now that was state of the art. They even used to have one on Grandstand.

Twitter is a virtual pub, without the hangover unless you want one; it's an extension of my front room, it's where those water cooler discussions happen in the 21st century, at least in this decade, it's overhearing people's thoughts like random mad people walking down the street talking to themselves. And you can just walk away from it if it annoys you.

I like it, it's a lot like the comments sections in music blogs used to be when people used to frequent them. It's no coincidence that several bloggers I've known for years are spending more time there than on their blogs.

Facebook was always my social network of choice (excepting, this blog, my blog, other blogs) - but of late, and through a sequence of face(book)lifts - it's become Piccadilly Circus. Blazing away and top heavy with a scrolling roll-call of updates, timelines and twaddle I wouldn't give you tuppence ha'penny for.

Whereas Twitter has remained a pocket sized communicator - and a scrolling source of info, natter and banter.

If I follow someone, when they 'Tweet' do I automatically receive a text of said tweet? And, assuming I do, who pays for the text? I assume, simply because it seems logical that if I tweet something to my thousands of followers that I would not pay for all the text messages, am I right? Have I just answered my own question?

So nobody gets charged for anything. It's not the same as texting, which you pay your phone provider for.
Your timeline will fill up with a list of tweets (in real time) from ONLY the people you follow. If you start a message with @personsname, then only that person and people who follow them and you will see that message. Clear? :-)

because the click-through links from Tweets are then much more accessible and will pop up in your browser (i'm still struggling with a BlackBerry 8900 and its poor processor doesn't have the oomph)

I'm just sorry you think the chances very high that random phone call will result in a 'knob' answering.

I'm sure most people are not so bad are they?

It says "Captain Underpants smells of wee and eats Tesco Value tinned carrots"

Pass it on. Don't let him see it, though.

Probably use Twitter wrongly but it's linked to the Facebook page which drags the FB status to twitter. As it only deals with Liverpool music scene still get new followers each day. Likewise the Facebook page grows daily but I don't use Facebook for personal updates.

for the reasons that Drakey states above. I tend to pop on there if I've got five minutes to kill during the day, or if I get a message from someone else. It can bring a fantastic sense of occasion - I sat up most of the night, during the last general election, watching the results come in on the tv, and the various reactions on twitter.

there's often a really interesting discussion around other programmes like Question Time (and Strictly Come Dancing. Something for everybody). Twitter's actually (for me at least) a compelling reason to watch "big" TV programmes live.

But I have absolutely no idea how to make it go. I fear this may be a sign of getting old.