Re:Twitter Needs a Spam Filter? No, We Need a Marketer Filter
by johns on Friday July 03, 2009 @01:07PM
(#686319)
Exactly. Facebook should be for friends and people you actually know. Twitter works best if you follow people with shared interests (professional or otherwise) that you may or may not actually know in person.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Twitter Needs a Spam Filter? No, We Need a Marketer Filter
by akkartik on Friday July 03, 2009 @01:33PM
(#686351)
If you want to follow many people you can't follow people who post frequently.
I think that's reasonable; surely professional tweets can be restricted to a dozen a day.
If twitter makes it possible to prioritize tweets that will change. But as long as everything is time-ordered, high-frequency tweeters interfere with my ability to follow high-priority tweeters.
Re:Twitter Needs a Spam Filter? No, We Need a Marketer Filter
by johns on Friday July 03, 2009 @11:37PM
(#686867)
No. If you want to follow many people you can't follow people who post frequently. I happen to be able to (TweetDeck helps a lot). It's a tooling problem, not a service problem.
Re:Twitter Needs a Spam Filter? No, We Need a Marketer Filter
by eli on Saturday July 04, 2009 @12:26PM
(#687257)
Isn't it relevant that you need to use third-party tools to make Twitter usable? The concept of Twitter may live on, but I think we're all just waiting for a better implementation.
Heck, they had to buy another company just to provide search for their own data!
Re:Twitter Needs a Spam Filter? No, We Need a Marketer Filter
by johns on Sunday July 05, 2009 @08:34AM
(#688171)
If you start looking at Twitter like a utility, relying on tooling makes a lot more sense.
Re:Twitter Needs a Spam Filter? No, We Need a Marketer Filter
by onreact-com on Friday July 03, 2009 @05:21PM
(#686637)
Using the Power Twitter FF extension you can choose your favorite friends who get an extra menu item so that you don't miss anything.