<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title><![CDATA[TB-Blog - TechBites]]></title>
        <description><![CDATA[TechBites - The Science and Technology Collaborative Community]]></description>
        <link>http://www.techbites.com/</link>
		        	        	        <item>
                <guid isPermaLink="false">1681-447</guid>
	            <title><![CDATA[To Tweet or Not To Tweet? : Multicast vs. shared media]]></title>
	            <link>/201001071681/myblog/blog/z001d-to-tweet-or-not-to-tweet.html</link>
	            <description><![CDATA[
	            	            Henry has pointed to an important point that demonstrates the different etiquette and social assumptions involved in different network types.  Twitter is loved by the PR community because it uses a multicast/broadcast model.  True information sharing of the model used in Tech Bites, Facebook, and LinkedIn requires more of a nuanced mix of sharing detailed thoughts, videos, links, etc., and reading and commenting on others.  Twitter's limitation stems not only from its 140-character limit, but from the fact that followers are de-linked from those following, which encourages the kind of fake sharing that PR specialists and celebrities like to do.  (And for those people who just like to follow sports stars or celebrities without sharing, well, Twitter is built with a fan-club mindset.)

This implies that you also should be aware of the subtle etiquette assumptions that drive places like Facebook and LinkedIn.  Someone who uses a multi-way social network solely to promote their blog, their press releases, etc. is quickly tagged in friend networks as a one-way hypester, which usually leads to that person's posts being ignored.  There's nothing wrong with posting the existence of a new blog post in Facebook or LinkedIn, as long as you make sure that is not ALL you do.  I know certain unnamed PR people that are constantly using Facebook or LinkedIn utilizing a one-way multicast model, and they stand out like a sore thumb.

When on TechBites, Facebook, or LinkedIn, don't simply post and vanish - participate.  Comment on friends' posts.  Share their interesting videos with others.  And Henry's advice applies to the cluttered world of Twitter as well.  If you're going to tweet, say something original and unique in those 140 characters, and don't re-tweet til the cows come home. 	            ]]></description>
                <category><![CDATA[TB-Blog]]></category>
                <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:37:21 -0600</pubDate>
            </item>
	        	        <item>
                <guid isPermaLink="false">1681-441</guid>
	            <title><![CDATA[To Tweet or Not To Tweet? : Answers]]></title>
	            <link>/201001071681/myblog/blog/z001d-to-tweet-or-not-to-tweet.html</link>
	            <description><![CDATA[
	            	            1- no I don't see the point - I only read between a half and a third of the email I receive anyway so why would I want another stream of irellevant.... (insert term of choice here)

Twitter? OK maybe if I tried it I would get hooked? but I really dont see what is so great about twitting (should be the verb for using twitter) I mean the name says it all doesn't it?

I mean even Facebook - isn't that for people who don't have websites? and its not like I have the time to finish my website as it is.
But Twitter - what is so important you need it now, but so insignificant you can fit it into 140 bytes....er, characters?

And the thought of orange juice Twitting - well that just sums it all up really!	            ]]></description>
                <category><![CDATA[TB-Blog]]></category>
                <pubDate>Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:30:23 -0600</pubDate>
            </item>
	        	        <item>
                <guid isPermaLink="false">1681-436</guid>
	            <title><![CDATA[To Tweet or Not To Tweet? : And I thought that a twitter was a noise that a young lady made...]]></title>
	            <link>/201001071681/myblog/blog/z001d-to-tweet-or-not-to-tweet.html</link>
	            <description><![CDATA[
	            	            I've been using social networks for a pretty long while. But I've found myself unsubscribing to a great many feeds and websites. The culprit is people commenting just to hear themselves comment (and get retwittered), and an incredible amount of noise in the communication channel. I'm a very fast reader, and I still find myself chopping stuff that's been forwarded to me just because there's too much cruft in the messages. Yes, I miss good stuff, but I just can't consign myself to read through a few hundred postings to get one morsel of goodness.

My opinion is that people using social networks often lack a plan for what they want to accomplish: 

Make it succinct and compelling.

Apply judgment about what you should send to your readers - don't just tweet the fact that a car is available in red unless it reaches the level of import that you would pickup the phone and call a colleague only to tell them this fact.

Be vicious about culling cruft from your messages.

Make certain that the vast majority of your messages are supporting your mission.

Ideas?	            ]]></description>
                <category><![CDATA[TB-Blog]]></category>
                <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:12:55 -0600</pubDate>
            </item>
	        		    </channel>
</rss>

