+1

I completely agree. The transient nature of twitter makes it hard to
follow conversations. You'll have to be online all the time or you
don't get the real value out of it. I've been using Friendfeed for
couple of months and it seems to be more suitable for comments and
conversations than Twitter. All twitter users, start creating
Friendfeed accounts so that your twitter conversations could be
followed there also. Friendfeed would fill the gap between twitter and
Yahoo/Google-groups nicely.

Tapio

--- In altdotnet@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Bohlen" <sbohlen@...> wrote:
>
> Chad:
>
> I don't dispute the value (quality) of the conversations that are
> happening on Twitter; that's not my problem with it.
>
> The lack of approachability, recordability, or people to participate
> in the discussion in non-real-time is what I'm sort of pining about
> (which it seems you are also acknowledging if only peripherally).
> Once a convo happens on Twitter, its largely lost for others to find
> value from or participate in. I find this sad (and a net-negative
> for ALT.NET as group even as its perhaps not a net-negative for
> individuals in the group).
>
> I personally don't have time during my normal operating hours to twit
> away with others or to 'observe' the real-time conversations of
> others. Much of my daily life involves activities like meetings,
> discussions, phone calls, and more that aren't conducive to my being
> on twitter (or even in front of my PC) for hours at a time. So I
> find value in being able to follow the non-real-time discussions that
> are recorded for me here in the group.
>
> If we perceive that ALT.NET is about a reinforcing insular culture of
> people that aren't remotely interested in trying to find ways for
> others to adopt (or learn about) our values, then I think twitter is
> probably fine in re: providing value for people already part of
> ALT.NET. But if part of what we are about is trying to make our
> value system approachable to others, then having discussions in a
> medium that is as transient as twitter is a net-loss for ALT.NET
> (IMHO).
>
> Again, just my 2 cents here.
>
> --- In altdotnet@yahoogroups.com, "Chad Myers" <chad.myers@> wrote:
> >
> > Why is it a negative? It's unfortunate that twitter and IRC
> conversations
> > don't have the kind of lasting, searchable persistence that email
> groups
> > have. They also are much higher bandwidth and allow for more
> meaningful
> > conversations. I see Twitter as a boon for ALT.NET. I am much more
> > connected and in touch with ALT.NET folks and am able to sound
> ideas quicker
> > and get more immediate feedback on ideas. For heavy discussions,
> there's
> > always the mailing list or the next conference.
> >
> > If ALT.NET, or indeed Scott Bellware and David Laribee, have taught
> me
> > anything, it's that you [anyone] can't force the conversation to be
> > structured according to your [anyone's] will. The conversation
> will go
> > where it's most useful and will happen where it happens according
> to the
> > will of the participants. This is why the ALT.NET conferences are so
> > successful, because they're driven by the will of the crowd and
> this has a
> > surprisingly positive effect on the quality and quantity of
> discussion(s).
> >
> > I think you dismiss twitter to easily. It can be a fanboi/ego-trip
> if you
> > let it, but if you manage your followings well, it's a great way to
> get
> > diverse viewpoints on many things, but mostly technology (at least
> in my
> > case).
> > I recommend you try it again, and be VERY selective about who you
> follow and
> > I believe you will get some value out of it.
> >
> > -Chad
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:07 AM, Stephen Bohlen <sbohlen@> wrote:
> >
> > > ... and that if more traffic about the
> > > kinds of topics discussed here moves to that meduim then I think
> long-
> > > term that is a net negative for ALT.NET.
> > >
> >
>