Global Geek News Blog The home of more Global Geek News insight and opinions

6Jan/100

Nominate us for a Shorty Award!

Greetings Readers and Listeners!

Those of you that follow Global Geek News on Twitter know that I do my best to pass along all kinds of great tech related links.  Whether it is links about a big merger or just announcing that a new podcast is up, I do my best to tweet the tech content that you would find interesting.  If you agree that we pass along all kinds of awesome tech info, we would really appreciate it if you nominated @globalgeeknews for a Shorty Award!

What is a Shorty Award?  Shorty Awards are awards honoring the best producers of short, real time content on Twitter.  If you have people you follow that produce great Twitter content, you should nominate them for a Shorty Award in a good number of categories ranging from tech (where you should be nominating @globalgeeknews) to food and even advertising!

I really want to win this year, so I am begging you guys to please nominate @globalgeeknews for a Shorty Award!

Don't forget to follow Global Geek News on Twitter if you don't already!

22May/093

Is Twitter looking to charge per tweet?

Greetings Readers!

For years now, people have been asking how twitter is going to make money.  Earlier this week, their stance on some of the ideas including advertising became a bit more clear although we still haven't seen any indication that any form of monetization is coming down the pipes.  Could Twitter be planning something so sinister that they don't want anybody knowing yet?  Could they be planning to...charge per tweet?!

For whatever reason, the idea of charging per tweet never gets discussed much when people talk about how twitter can make money, but it is possibly the way that the service can make the most money.  Sure, some users would be pissed if they were charged per tweet, but wireless carriers have been able to make this service work with text messages for years.  Wireless carriers typically give customers several options when it comes to texting, you can pay per text, for a certain number of texts and then pay per text above that or for unlimited texts.  Considering how much is charged for texts and how little they cost the carrier to send, it is a huge cash cow for wireless carriers.  Not only does it make them a ton of money, but it also keeps the demand on the service at a more manageable level because people will more closely regulate how much they use the service.

This could be the perfect model for twitter.  If twitter was to charge you a subscription fee that allows you so many tweets per month and then pay for anything over that like wireless carriers do with text messaging, they would need huge trucks just to haul all of their money to the bank.  Having an unlimited subscription plan would be great and benefit the heaviest of users because it could take some of the current restrictions off in terms of number of tweets that can be sent per day.  Of course there would be a free tier that would allow you to send so many tweets per month that while reasonable, would entice people to pay for a higher number of tweets.  This would also solve one of twitter's biggest issues, stability.  If people were forced to keep a better eye on how much they tweet (unless they have an unlimited plan), twitter wouldn't constantly run into the the growing pains that it seems to continually suffer from.  Until recently, they hadn't been a major issue since the fairly early days of the service, but the scaling issues seems to have returned now that Twitter has gone mainstream and this would be the best possible way to slow the growth and use of twitter until they can keep up with it while making a ton of money at the same time.  They can kill two fail whales with one stone.

Will Twitter adopt this model as a way to make money and keep the site from growing faster than they can keep up with it or will they find another avenue for monetization?  Time will tell.

Check out the latest Global Geek News Podcast!

Follow me on Twitter!

-Jeremy "pcnerd37" Bray

12May/090

Twitter believes we are too stupid for @ replies

Greetings Readers!

Normally I am fast asleep at the time that I am writing this, but it is quite warm here and I can't sleep when it is hot.  Not being able to sleep, I decided to browse the new posts on my Google Reader.  After sifting through all of the stuff I don't care about, I came across some news from TechCrunch that Twitter is removing a large part of the service's @ reply functionality because it seems to believe people are too stupid to figure it out.  Maybe I am just cranky because I can't sleep, but this sounds like a great opportunity to go on a good rant.

Is there anything about Twitter that confuses you to the point of frustration or even wanting to quit the service?  Do you find @ replies confusing?  I didn't think so.  @ Replies have been around for nearly as long as Twitter yet apparently all of the sudden they are too confusing for people.  What is most perplexing is that this functionality that is being removed, the ability to see everybody's @ replies even if you don't follow the people they are talking to, is that this functionality isn't even enabled by default.  You have to go into the settings and enable this feature yourself.  If people are too stupid to figure out the basics of twitter, what are they doing mucking around in the settings area in the first place?  If people can't figure out what this functionality does and how it affects their experience withe the service, I think that is more twitter's fault for not explaining it well enough instead of just implying that their users are stupid.

The truly annoying thing about all of this is that they seem to be eliminating one feature after another without adding anything.  Just recently, they announced that they were killing the auto-follow feature that a user has to request to be an option in the first place.  Why are you killing a feature that is obviously valuable to some people while most users don't know it exists so that it can't change how they use the service?  I am not completely against killing features as I understand that sometimes they aren't useful or cause more problems than good, but killing used features for no reason and not replacing them with new functionality is something that has always irritated me.  It is the purpose of a service to move forward, not back.  While many services are adding features, the fastest growing service on the internet seems to be taking them away with no legitimate reason for doing so.

Twitter seems to be becoming too reliant upon third party services to fill in the gap.  I will admit that while there are some really stupid services out there, there are a ton of great twitter apps and services that bring a huge value to the twitter experience.  While I think it is great to let the twitter community grow and do its own thing, it is not right to expect them to pick up the slack and make new services just because you kill off an existing feature.  You can help the community grow in many ways, but lowering the value of your service by disabling features is not a good move for anybody.  Twitter needs to wake up and realize that it has a ton of competition from services such as friendfeed and needs to spend more time improving and stabilizing the product instead of moving backward and disabling existing functionality.

Enough of my late night rant.  If you haven't already, give a listen to episode #23 of the Global Geek News Podcast.  A new show should be out Thursday or Friday.  Until then...

Follow me on twitter & friendfeed!

-Jeremy "pcnerd37" Bray

28Apr/090

Is Twitter Good or Bad for the Swine-Flu?

Greetings Readers!

After seeing non-stop coverage of flu fears, I decided I should write my thoughts on the relationship between swine-flu and twitter.

If you haven't heard of the swine-flu, especially if you use Twitter, you are likely living under a rock on another planet and don't understand any human languages.  The swine-flu is the talk of all of the news outlets on tv, radio and the internet.  While I will admit that I believe that the massive amount of coverage that the swine-flu is getting in mainstream media is beyond overkill and done to either increase ratings or cause panic (which would be another story to boost ratings),  I think the real story is how it is being talked about on social networking sites, in particular, Twitter.

Twitter can be a wonderful tool for spreading information quickly and efficiently (assuming that the service is actually working), but it can also be a tool to cause more harm than good.  With people constantly retweeting the latest bit of information, which many times can be inaccurate, it is easy to see how such a service can take an issue such as swine-flu and blow it so far out of proportion that it causes panic.  I believe that this is what is happening.  While I will admit that there has been some good discussion and some informative links that have been passed around, most of the twitter chatter hasn't been helpful to the swine-flu cause.  Whether its jokes that try to make light of the seriousness of the outbreak or those that tweet out of a state of panic because the flu is in their area or those that just flood their twitter stream with any swine-flu related link, no matter how inaccurate it is, many of the people that are discussing the swine-flu on Twitter are causing more harm than good.  If you have uninformed people in a state of panic sending out information about what they are panicking about, then it only serves to create even more uninformed people in a state of panic.  The last thing we need on twitter is more FUD.

How should we be twittering the swine-flu outbreak you ask?  There are several ways you can make sure you are a part of the solution and not part of the problem.  First, if you see a new link going around that has already been tweeted by several people you follow, especially those with hundreds of thousands of followers, there is no need for you to retweet the same information again.  All that will do is annoy your followers because instead of posting something original, you are just copying the same thing that everybody else is posting.  Second, make sure you have the most up-to-date information available.  Twittering about old reports won't help anybody, especially when older reports tend to be more inaccurate than what is new at the time since many places don't bother to update their stories.  Last, unless you have a confirmed case of swine-flu, don't twitter about it.  I realize that being sick sucks, but saying you think you have swine-flu just because you have flu-like symptoms only serves to create panic in your community.

If you have suggestions for how people can be part of the solution instead of the problem, please post them in the comments.

Follow me on Twitter!

- Jeremy "pcnerd37" Bray

13Mar/094

Why ‘Live Twittering’ is a Horrible Idea

Greetings Readers!

I have another rant again today.  Hopefully I will have some more upbeat things to write about after this but today's topic really irritated me this morning so after gathering my thoughts, I decided that I should address the idea of "live twittering" here.

'Live Twittering' is likely a new term to most people as thankfully it hasn't really caught on at this point.  Live Twittering is much like live blogging except it takes place on Twitter.  It can also take place on other micro-blogging services but since Twitter is the biggest, I will be talking about it today.  Live blogging and live Twittering are similar in that they are a live reporting of something as it happens.  Whether its a tv show or a press event, it is relaying information in near real time primarily for those who cant experience the event themselves or wish to share the experience with others.

Although similar, there is one major difference that I see to be a major problem.  Live blogging is attended by people who specifically seek to be apart of the live blog whereas with live Twittering, followers don't really have a choice without completely unfollowing the person.  Often times, live blogs contain material that people consider to be spoilers but that is something that is acknowledged and accepted by those who intentionally go and read or participate in the live blog.  This presents a major issue for live Twittering.  When live Twittering something such as a TV show (for example, the Battlestar Galactica finale), the live tweeter's followers will be inundated with information they either don't care about or don't want to know because they are unable to watch at that time and don't want to have the episode spoiled for them before they get a chance to watch.  Live twittering essentially takes away that choice for the user and leaves them with the only real option of unfollowing you either permanently or temporarily until they know you have stopped.

Its clear that the major difference is user choice.  The user can choose whether or not to be apart of their live blog, but the choice becomes much more difficult when you force the experience on them by live Twittering.   I have even had people threaten to unfollow me if I took that choice away from them, which is why I only do a live blog.  It all comes down to choice, something that should never be taken away from your potential audience.

New Twitter Etiquette (part 2) Rule:  Thou shalt not live Twitter!

If you want to see how I handle this issue, you are invited to watch and participate in my Battlestar Galactica live blog tonight on Pcnerd37.com.  I will be Twittering out the exact link when I go live (So follow me!).  The show starts at 10pm EST but I typically get things going around 9:30pm EST.

Programming Note:  I put up two Global Geek News Podcasts this week so check them out.  Wesley is busy with SXSW so I will likely do a solo show over the weekend and put it up as soon as its ready.

Follow me on Twitter & Friendfeed!

-Jeremy "pcnerd37" Bray

2Mar/092

Why trivia contests should not be on Twitter

Greetings Readers!

I wanted to address what I find to be a growing problem on Twitter, trivia contests.

For quite a while now, I have noticed various people on Twitter such as @microsoft_cares and  @rahulsood among others give away some great prizes by running trivia contests on Twitter.  I see several problems with this.  Before I get going on my disagreements with it, I have won prizes via Twitter in the past, so if you believe that I am mad because I don't win, you would be very wrong.

The first issue I have with this is fairness.  While everybody certainly has a chance at winning, thanks to a slow (assuming its even up which is another complaint) Twitter web interface, people often wont be able to see the question at the same time and thus create a disadvantage for some users.  This problem is even more evident today when Twitter was slow and up and down much of the day after a power failure.  Contests such as this should be held in a way that problems such as slow website or api limit or whatever can't effect somebody's chances to win the contest.  Contests like this can be won or lost in less than a second, so it should be based on a less time restricting manner.

My next issue with doing trivia contests on Twitter is that it is really a thinly-veiled attempt to up your follower count.  Trying to up your follower account with such a cheap tatic is sad.  I believe a followers count should be deserved, not bought.  If you don't have as many followers as you like or believe you deserve, you should do something so that more people will find you worth following.  You should target a group of people that you think should follow you and go after them.  For example, if you want to target people that love food, most of the content you post should be to things like recipies and restaurant reviews.  If you people interested in cars to follow you, you should post a lot of stuff about cars.  You should also follow these people.  If they see you post about stuff they are interested in, they are likely to follow you back which is what you are after.  Contests are a shotgun blast to get anybody you can when you should really be targeting a group of people who you can bring value to and who can bring value to you!

Now I'm not saying running contests on Twitter is a bad thing, but doing them the way I see most often is.  Contests should be used to promote you and what you do to the maximum degree.  Giving things away is a great way to earn brand awareness and a fan or two of a product, but the way many contests are currently done, they only have a fraction of the impact that they could have.    If you want to get the most out of the contests, have people who want to win something do something for you.  Have them submit something to your website or comment on your blog or something.  If they are willing to google something to try to win whatever you are trying to give away, they will certainly be willing to do something actually useful to you for the prize.  Sending people to your website or blog or whatever can do a much better job at educating people on what you do and what your product is than just having them answer some random trivia question and cross their fingers that they will get something.  Hitting follow is not an action worthy of a prize either (I'm talking to you people that give away stuff when you hit so many thousands of followers).

Finally, if you still insist on doing a Twitter triva contest, at least make sure that the trivia question is related to you instead of just some random fact.  Have your followers learn about your history or other products so that they can become aware of what you have to offer instead of asking something that can be easily found in a quick Google search.  Give yourself the maximum possible exposure with a contest, don't just give stuff away for the heck of it.

Anyway, enough of me ranting.  This is my advice for running contests on Twitter.  Take it or leave it.  If you have any questions or want me to expand on this, respond in the comments.

Follow me on Twitter!

-Jeremy "pcnerd37" Bray

27Jan/090

Aggregated Media Guilt

Greetings Readers!

Do you ever feel guilty when you get behind on podcasts, rss feeds, tweets or any other form of aggregated media?  I have been suffering from this guilt which I like to call 'Aggregated Media Guilt' or AMG for short for quite some time and I think its time to address it here.

I can honestly say that I have been suffering from AMG ever since I started listening to podcasts.  I would often download podcasts without time to listen to them and end up falling behind.  This gave me a sense of guilt because I had a ton of podcasts that I never got around to listening to.  Sometimes I would merely delete them and try to forget about them, but many times the guilt was such that I would end up spending a minimum of 9 hours a day listening to podcasts just so I could be caught up and not miss anything.  At the time, I only had this guilt from podcasts, but I hadn't really discovered the wonders that are Twitter and RSS feeds.

Eventually, I became an avid Twitter and RSS reader user which has been just as bad if not worse than the guilt I suffered from podcasts.  Now, I am checking my Twitter every few minutes, reading over 100 tweets every morning when I get up to make sure I haven't missed anything and reading hundreds of items in my Google Reader every day.  Why am I doing this?  I have this feeling that if I don't, I am missing out on something.  I will admit that many things in my RSS feed or Twitter feed are things that I don't care about or just a bunch of people saying the same thing.  While this ultimately sucks up more time to sift through these items, I feel it is necessary so I don't miss something that I find important.  I am not one to get addicted to anything, but I admit that I have become an aggregated media addict.

Do you or people you know suffer from the same problem?  Do you fell like you are missing something if you don't see everything?

I believe I have come up with a solution.   I find that if I have a manageable level of aggregated media, I experience guilt, but if I have a source of aggregated media that is not possible to keep up with, the guilt goes away.  For example, I follow around 200 people on Twitter.  This is a fairly manageable feed as there is probably only in the neighborhood of 500 updates a day or so.  Some of those updates I find valuable and others I don't so they get glanced over.  In the end, I am trying to find the value which makes me check my Twitter every couple of minutes to see what I have missed and what conversations I can join in on.  Friendfeed on the other hand is very different for me.  I follow a large number of people on there so that there is so much stuff that is aggregated and passes by that there is no possible way that I can read everything.  Realizing this, it completely changes my mindset and gets rid of my guilt.  By knowing that I cant keep up with it no matter how hard I try, it frees me from thinking I need to spend all of my time trying to consume what is shared.

In the end, with the way that comments and likes are done with FriendFeed, it becomes much easier for me to pick out the interesting items on FriendFeed because there is generally a lot of activity around anything worth while.  You can't really see this in RSS readers or on Twitter so it becomes a case of you having to find the nuggets in the river instead of letting other people find them for you and giving you a chance to see them before they pass by.

In the end, you have to realize that while you may miss some valuable content, more is always coming and chances are what you missed wasn't life altering.  Whether it is on Twitter, Google Reader, or your podcatcher, great content will become obvious and you should let others find the great content for you so that you don't have to look for it yourself and feel guilty for missing something.

What do you do about your aggregated media guilt?  I would love to hear how you cope with it and your strategies for fighting against it.  Leave your stories in the comments!

Follow me on Twitter and FriendFeed!

-Jeremy "pcnerd37" Bray

12Jan/091

TweetReplies Makes Sure You Never Miss an @ Reply

Greetings Readers!

I thought I would write a quick post to share a great new Twitter service that I have discovered with my readers.  As you may have guessed from the post title, the new service is called TweetReplies.

For those that have never heard of TweetReplies, it is a new service that helps make sure you never miss an @ reply.  TweetReplies emails you whenever you have an @ reply so you never have to wait around for your friends to reply to your latest tweet.  With many people able to get their email via their phone, you can rest assured that you will know if you get an @ reply even if you are away from your computer.  But that's not all!  TweetReplies will also make an RSS feed out of your replies!

If you are like me and obsessively try to aggregate everything you are interested in into your Google Reader, this is the service for you.   By turning your @ replies into an RSS feed, you can save that precious click from your RSS reader to your Twitter client.  This is also very handy for those that use Google Reader to share rss items with others.  You can now share your tweet replies without having to worry about retweeting or trying to cut down a tweet enough to retweet it to all of your followers.

There is one great thing that I probably should have mentioned sooner.  What is this wonderful thing you ask?  TweetReplies does all of this WITHOUT your Twitter password!  With the recent Twitter phishing and hijacking attacks, this is probably the most important feature.  Never giving out your password unless absolutely necessary is always the best policy and TweetReplies seems to understand this.  You can rest easy knowing that you haven't given your password to another third party service that could potentially try to hijack your account.

If you are looking to get your Twitter replies from email or RSS, this is the service for you.

Follow me on Twitter!

-Jeremy "pcnerd37" Bray

15Dec/080

How Do You Pick Your Social Networking Friends?

Greetings Readers!

Last night, I was playing around with the cool new website, socialmedian, when I came across a post about the dangers of random friending.  This story got me to thinking about how I choose my friends on my various social networks.  After giving some thought to it, I thought it would make for an interesting blog post, so here it goes.

How do you decide who to friend on social networks?  Do you have have different rules for friending for the different social networks?  Personally, I have different rules for friending depending on the social network and what the use of the social network is.  For example, with only a couple of exceptions, if I friend somebody on a site such as Facebook, which I find to be a more personal social network as that is where I keep much of my contact information and various other things, it is because I personally know you or have had contact with you at some point.  This differs greatly from other networks that I am apart of.  On Twitter, I would say I am about as picky about the people I follow, but its based on different criteria.  When it comes to Twitter, I have two main criteria for me to follow you.  First, I will likely only follow you if you tweet about things that I find interesting or helpful.  Links to things showing me how I can do better with things such as blogging, podcast or others is probably the best way to have me follow you.  Second, you can't tweet too much.  I don't like it when people tweet excessively (20+ times a day).  If you are using your tweets to send great links and information, I usually overlook this, but I don't want my twitter stream to be flooded by a single person.  While I love Twitter, I don't want to spend all day staying up with my feeds because one or more of my twitter friends insist on Twittering until their fingers fall off.  Different yet again, is how I use FriendFeed.  If I friend somebody on FriendFeed, it is solely based on the content the produce and share.  If I like what you are posting, I will follow you to make my FriendFeed use more valuable.  It is kind of the fire hose approach, but I find its the best way to keep from missing out on great content.

One of the great things about social networking is that you can use the networks however you please.  It can be a great way to keep in touch with friends and family as well as a great promotional tool.  However you use your networks, I think the idea still remains that you are judged by the company you keep.  When I introduce somebody to a network such as Twitter, I will be showing them my profile and I want them to see that I can get value from Twitter by following people that are intelligent and willing to pass along information that I find helpful or informative in some way.  Being able to give myself a valuable experience based upon the people I friend on social networks is great, but it is also a great way to get new people on the service because they can see how such a service can provide value.

For many people, social networks can be about having great conversations.  I rarely use my social networks in such a manner, but that is based on some personal preferences that I might discuss at a later time, but it centers around having the option to respond but not feeling obligated to respond to what somebody has to say.  For people who use social networks for conversation, friending people largely becomes about who is an interesting person to have a conversation with.  I don't know about you, but I don't have much use for people that can't hold up their end of the conversation.  I'm not looking to have 'yes men' as friends (my ego isn't that big), but I do like to conversate with somebody who has an opinion about something and can support their position intelligently.  This is part of how I choose guests for my podcasts as well.

No matter how you choose to use the multitude of social networks, you likely have an opinion as to what makes a good social networking friend and how your choose your social networking friends.  How do you choose your social networking friends?  Do you take a cautious approach and friend only a few, or do you friend everybody and cut back on the people you don't think fit well with how you want to use a particular socail network?  Tell me how you handle freinding on social networks in the comments!

Follow me on Twitter!

-Jeremy "pcnerd37" Bray

3Dec/081

Twitter vs FriendFeed

Greetings Readers!

I have been using Twitter for close to a year and FriendFeed maybe half that time at best and I feel its finally time for me to declare which service is better.  Before I announce the better service, I should say that their overall function is similar but not exactly the same.

For those that don't know, Twitter is a great "micro-blogging" tool.  With Twitter, you are encouraged to tell people what you are doing.  You can also have conversations on Twitter and share the really cool things you find online with all of your friends.  The number of things that can be done with Twitter is practically limitless.  Twitter also has a huge community around it to the point that there are tons of programs that allow users to interact with the service, such as TweetDeck, something not common with other services.  FriendFeed on the other hand is this (minus the large community) and more.

FriendFeed allows you to do the same things as I mentioned above with Twitter, but you can do much more with it.  FriendFeed is about aggregating your online presence and sharing it with other people who can share it with their contacts if they choose.  With FriendFeed, whenever you write a blog post, put a picture on Flickr, Digg a story or do pretty much anything else, it will be put in your stream for all you contacts to see and comment.  When a friend likes or comments on your posts, the content is shared with their friends which allows for content to spread to many people very quickly who would likely have not known about the content otherwise.  With threaded comments that are essentially open to anybody assuming an item shows up in your feed to comment on, FriendFeed allows for much a much greater discussion with many people than can be done with Twitter.

Given this comparison, FriendFeed clearly seems to be superior to Twitter, but its not a perfect service.  With Twitter, you can follow many people, but the more people you follow, the less valuable the service becomes because you tend to miss tweets and don't always know what is going on.  Personally, I find the maximum number of people I can follow while not becoming completely overwhelmed with Tweets is around 200, but I would say that 150 is a more reasonable number.  This depends of course on how often the people you follow tweet, but it seems to be a good number for most people.  FriendFeed on the other hand, the more people you follow, the more valuable the service becomes.  Since the conversations are opened to everybody and not just to a friend or two, there isn't a real negitive impact for following a large number of people.  I find that the more people I am subscribed to on FriendFeed, the more cool items that I find interesting come across my FriendFeed.  Since many of the people I follow comment on similar things, while my feed is a little busier, it doesn't seem to become overwhelming.  Also, with the more people you follow, the more cool things you will find.  The only problem here is that FriendFeed only has a fraction of the users that Twitter does.

As I am sure you can tell, I prefer FriendFeed to Twitter for many reasons, but I still use Twitter (whos messages are aggregated into FriendFeed) because it has more users who I have a closer relationship with than my FriendFeed friends.  If my Twitter friends were on FriendFeed, I would be likely to leave Twitter.  I do think that this will change in the future as more people see that more value can be gained from FriendFeed than Twitter.  Until that time comes, its really about where the people are at, which at this time is Twitter.

While Twitter is a great service, one which I use many times of day, I think it is no where close to providing the value that can be offered by FriendFeed.  Not taking into account the community surrounding the service (various apps that use the service such as TweetDeck), the only thing that Twitter is better for is the larger number of users.   FriendFeed is better in most every aspect which is why I think it is the better service.

Winner:  FriendFeed!

What do you think about FriendFeed and Twitter?  Which do you think is a better service?

Follow me on Twitter!

Follow me on FriendFeed!

-Jeremy "pcnerd37" Bray