Comments on: Scott Karp: Talking to You People is a Massive Waste of Time

By: Wonderwebby

Wonderwebby — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:40:22 +0000

Jake mentions the cubicle noise factor. Exactly why I call Twitter head popping over the partition conversations. Too much and you never get work done. Too little and you become a drone in a cube. But just enough = great value for social and knowledge sharing reasons.

By: Anne Z

Anne Z — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:39:03 +0000

Scott: the way it was written, it was a slam. Maybe it was a personal decision and your own personal experience, but it also judged other people in harsh terms, saying that people who use Twitter and other social software look to the web for time wasting (vs. your focus on efficiency) and that they are neglecting their families.

Of course I don’t consider conversation here to be a waste of time.

By: Justin Kestelyn

Justin Kestelyn — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:31:03 +0000

Twitter’s value is in the eye of the beholder. There are many, many useless blogs out there, but that doesn’t mean blogging or reading blogs are a waste of time.

Thankfully, I can choose to ignore (”un-follow”) any blogs I like.

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:21:52 +0000

OK, as I sidestep the argument . . .

Twitter for those of us who work from home is as much a part cube distractions, like the break room online, as it is information source.

I may not care what Jeremiah’s listening to or what Michael Krigsman’s having for dinner, but it gives me a chuckle and frankly, I’m not required to care b/c neither one is in front of me.

I’ve met both these guys in person, so that makes it more human. So, personally the human element is a nice feature, mixed in with all the information overload.

By: Scott Karp

Scott Karp — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:25:55 +0000

Anne,

What was a waste of time?

- “Half conversations,” which I explained
- Auto blog post links, which I blogged about previously
- Comments and thoughts for which no obvious reference point was given (which might have been interesting if fully articulated in more than 140 characters)

But my caveats about all the GOOD in Twitter were honest — and I said my decision about twitter was personal. I never said you should I stop using Twitter because I did. And my observations about the amount of time we spend in different part of our lives were philosophical, not a “slam.” (I have to wonder why there is so much sensitivity on this issue.)

But really, if you think I’m being dishonest about the aspects of what I wrote that get in the way of your demonizing my perspective, then I suppose I can’t really change your mind, can I?

Still, I don’t consider talking to you here a waste of time?

Do you?

By: James Lewin

James Lewin — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:31:32 +0000

Seems like there’s some high-quality link baiting going on with both posts!

Something that people are giving enough consideration to is that the state of Twitter clients is abysmal. We’ve got hundreds of feedreaders that let us intelligently filter through the chaotic flood of news that’s published to the Internet, but we don’t have any great tools for filtering through Twitter yet.

Better Twitter tools should address Scott’s concerns while preserving the things you like, Anne.

By: Anne Z

Anne Z — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:45:33 +0000

Actually, Scott, from reading your post I don’t get the sense that you have a nuanced view of Twitter. I get the sense that you added in caveats so you could quote them back when people took offense to the real thrust of your argument: “I don’t use Twitter and I’m superior to all those addicted unproductive idiots who do.”

I do not know that your view of Twitter is nuanced, I don’t know anything of the sort.

You put in bold: Twitter is massive waste of time. If the people were not the waste of time, then what was? Twitter is a very bare technology — pretty much just people saying stuff. If that’s not the waste of time, what is? Logging in? Launching a Twitter client?

By: Scott Karp

Scott Karp — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:41:38 +0000

Oh, come on, Anne, that post title is no better than what you’re accusing me of.

I was quite clear that the people were not a waste of time:

“I found Twitter to be mesmerizing, which partly reflects the brilliance of the design and partly that I was following really interesting, insight, enjoyable people, whose random musings were worth following (and my high opinion of the people — many of whom read this blog, and whose blogs I read — remains unchanged).”

And I agree with the ambient intimacy theory, too.

My perspective on Twitter is nuanced, and I know you know that, but we all know the nuance doesn’t make for a good blog post headline.