Read first, post later

Twitter is experimenting with a new feature (Android only) that would ask users to read articles before posting a link. I like the idea and I have offered a similar recommendation for Facebook. With Facebook, I would like to see a feature that requires a personal statement to accompany any post rather than just sharing or adding a meme link.

I am mostly an Apple user so I won’t be able to try the new Twitter feature, but this isn’t the way I use Twitter anyway. I tend to share a link from the source to Twitter. When you share from the source, you have the document open in the first place. The Twitter idea of a request to read is a useful reminder, but there is unlikely a way to actually verify that a posted resource has been read.

Early evaluation of longer tweets

When Twitter announced the intention to double the length of tweets allowed, the results were mixed. I thought it was a great ideal especially for those wanting to use Twitter as a chat tool. Other disagreed and threatened to block those who wrote longer tweets.

It seems that the controversy has subsided. I predicted as much. Twitter is mostly a scan experience with any additional time required likely to be negligible.

Buzzfeed shares some data on basic actions such as retweets and likes. Both variables favor longer tweets by a substantial margin.

Twitter expands character limit

OK - Twitter has doubled the number of characters that can be included in a tweet. You now have 280 characters. Two hundred and eighty characters is still not much, but it offers the opportunity to offer more complete thoughts and it is well within the limits of what I would consider a microblog (this used to be a thing - it is difficult for me to regard Twitter as any kind of blog).

Some Twitter users evidently feel that they have been betrayed. They threaten to abandon the service, to unfollow those they follow who are wordy, and to use extensions that automatically truncate or ignore tweets that extend beyond 140 characters. This all seems silly to me and I have trouble understanding why these folks are so put out. Given all of the inane things that appear on Twitter, the ads, the cat images, and the images of text offered in a way to get around the 140 character limit, these folks are enraged by the limited number of tweets that will be a bit longer. Flexibility is evidently not a virtue to these folks and the split second it takes to scroll on down the list must be a significant intrusion into their very busy lives.

Twitter expands character limit

After a limited test, Twitter has decided to roll out the opportunity to expand tweets to 280characters. This doubles the existing capacity. While some object based on their reluctance to read longer comments, I think this is a good thing.

I have been critical of a specific application of twitter – the twitter chat. A chat is a workaround attempting to use Twitter for synchronous chats. I have explained my issues in previous posts. After observing a significant number of such chats, I found them shallow. They just seemed unproductive for the time typically committed. This new capacity in combination with an adjustment in the number of questions could allow participants to craft more thoughtful contributions and engage with each other more frequently.

What Twitter is and what it isn't

I am not a fan of Twitter chat. These seem an example of the "I only have a hammer" mentality.

Twitter facilitates. It is the means to various ends. It may motivate the engagement some need to pursue certain ends. It may help you identify (discover) resources related to ends you want to achieve. However, if all you do is follow Twitter and maybe even tweet now and then, I would argue you are missing out on most learning opportunities. 

The 140 character limit is the culprit here. Within this limit, you can be directed to meaningful content, but not experience meaningful content directly. You can direct others to content that you have learned from composing. However, the composition must occur elsewhere.

The 140 character limit combined with the time to post and read posts limits the efficiency of group conversations. I say this in reaction to what I have observed in group chat conversations. Limited time to think, limited time to produce, and a limit on what can be stated are a combination resulting in little accomplished. I think people like the experience of interacting in real time. They fail to take stock of what really gets done. 

I think a tool not limiting input would address some of these challenges. So, for example, google hangouts allows both interactive audio and text chat. As long as participants come prepared my experience has been the conversations are richer.

It is my perception that preparation is an issue in most chats. Once lack of preparation becomes the norm, both the number of responses, the depth of responses, and even the questions posed change. If this is to be the situation, an old-fashioned discussion board makes more sense. There is no pressure to "shoot from the hip" and there is the opportunity to use earlier responses to generate ideas in new responses. An hour spent with this format while typically not synchronous would typically be more productive.

The 140 character limit

I see that Twitter has removed the 140 character limit for direct messages. I wish there was a way to extend the limit for the tweets generated as part of "chats". As an observer, I have not found the sessions to be particularly informative. If the assumption is that such ;must be limited to text, it would be helpful if such conversations were not bound by the 140 character limit. The posts are so cryptic when bound by the 140 limit, that too many really offer little information and too much time is wasted attempting to generate a thought within the limit. This has long been, for me, an example of committing to a tool before carefully considering the point of the application. A Twitter chat alternative with an expanded character limit would do a lot to improve the value of these chat sessions.

Mellowing on Twitter Chats

Trivial Communication

When a husband asks his wife “how was your day”, the question and the response are usually trivial. What is important is the unstated message that “I care about you”. Perhaps this is the way it is with Twitter chats. (not my insight - a comment I adapted from Mediactive)

Followers of my social commentary likely know that I am not a fan of Twitter chats (often described as edchats when involving groups of educators). An edchat typically lasts an hour and consists of group Twitter responses to a series of questions. The questions are often available ahead of time. I have attempted to participatred and I have observed Twitter chats and have formed my opinions based on these experiences. I find nearly all tweets are trivial - platitudes or socialization - nothing informative or original (e.g., links to resources I had not encountered). I blame a) the limited expressive potential of Twitter (140 characters) and b) my guess that few participants familiarize themselves with the questions before participating - in other words nearly all involved are shooting from the hip. I suggest that 15 individuals spending one hour each represent a great deal of commitment that would be better spent if each read a book.

I really wish some grad student would investigate this phenomena. One could interview participants and create a coding system for the interaction (much like analyses of classroom discussions). It would be an important contriution if it generated conclusions that would lead to helpful suggestions.

When in a cynical mood, I also question the motives of some participants who seem to promote themselves through this communication model. In particular those who believe their expertise should demand a price should they be invited to share their wisdom face to face. This message contains an interesting internal contradiction if you consider it in depth.

My reading of Mediactive has caused me to mellow a bit. The Edchat probably does serve a social function among those who value educational applications of technology. I wish it would be represented for this contribution.

Why Twitter for edchats?

Why has the Twitter "edchat" become so popular? There are so many characteristics of the tool and the way it is used that are either limiting or annoying. This drives me crazy. I think online discussions are so valuable, but I am bewildered by the selection of Twitter for an opportunity that is being squandered.

140 characters is too limiting. I wish some grad student would analyze the responses in a Twitter chat? What % are "borrowed" platitudes? How many individuals actually participate in an hour session? I get the feeling many are multi-tasking and watching television or reading their email while "participating".

The process moves too slowly. So many questions seem superficial and then there is the delay for the combination of response generation and reading. This issue in combination with the limited nature of the responses is deadly. A format based on a few general questions and a more free flowing approach would seem more productive. I just don't think the tool is suited to a flexible approach.

The public nature of the process is self-centered and annoying to nonparticipants. Any Twitter user has been on the receiving end of a Twitter feed when one or two of their "follows" are participating in a chat. A3 - use it or lose it. It is very much like being trapped in close proximity to someone talking on a cell phone. It is inescapable spam.

Most educators have likely heard of the term affordance. It is the notion that the characteristics of a situation or tool make certain actions easier. This notion is seldom considered in the negative, but the opposite of an affordance also applies. Certain characteristics make things more difficult.

What is wrong with a Google hangout? If some members of a group are bandwidth deprived, you can still rely on text. The length of comments is not limited and the general public is protected by circles and invitations from numerous comments out of any meaningful context. Of course, the audio/video option would offer the opportunity for conversations of greater depth.

I

f not a hangout, there are so many other free or inexpensive options. I applaud the effort, but wish educators would show more creativity and/or independence and move to a more effective tool. It seems folks want to be part of a club based on a given approach rather than considering the purpose to which they have committed and being willing to recognize better options are available.