Having said that, what are some of the new themes in Twitter etiquette that are worth commenting on?  Let’s take a tour.

#hashtags: Hashtags are those words prefixed by the pound sign (“#”, also known a hash sign) that you see in tweetstreams.  They supposedly provide context and metadata to tweets, but in practice, I see them used mostly for emphasis, and that’s how I use them.  It’s slightly painful to see well-meaning twitterati try to coordinate hashtags for an event when everyone has already started using different ones.

Blog posts: Normally people are pretty good about noting that they are linking to one of their own posts by prefixing their tweet with [blog] or [post] or something similar.  Bloggers who repeatedly spam their own posts get blocked, period.  Twitter in my mind is a lifestreaming app, not a one-way push mechanism.

Retweets: Twitter recently fucked up the retweet function on their website, and not only don’t allow you to edit tweets for length, or add your own prefix comment.  Luckily most other tools still allow you retweet and  keep your sanity.  A couple tricky issues with retweets:

• How much editing is too much?
• If an item has been retweeted before it got to you, do you have to keep the whole chain of retweeters?

I have no hard-and-fast expectation for either.  If you want to edit the retweet, go for it.  If you want to chop out multiple retweeters, go for it.  Try your best to keep original attribution, but don’t go all haywire applying severe rules to a fluid medium.

Grammar: A lot of twitter grammarians have already checked themselves in to inpatient psych wards, so this problem is less of an issue than it used to be.  Twitter grammar sucks.  People type quickly, they type while driving, they type while roller skating backwards and locking lips with their significant others.  Bad grammar happens.  Even if bad grammar chafes (as it does me), you can learn to deal with it.  People are messy. So is Twitter.

Rickrolling:  Rickrolling is like heavy drinking; every now and then it can be a fun break.  Do it every day and people start to shun you.

Protected Updates: My favorite phrase on this question is “protected updates make baby Jesus cry.”  Don’t protect your updates and still pretend that you’re “doing” Twitter.  Get over your fear of the Wayback Machine, live your life authentically, and don’t worry what some future boss/friend/spouse might think about something you tweeted back in 2008.

Inanity: Sometimes tweets make no sense.  In my opinion, that’s part of the fun of Twitter; you get to see people as they really are, without a lot of filtering and polishing and pre-planning and run-this-by-my-publicist checking.  Tweeps who are too polished are boring, IMHO.  On the other hand, if you like the  corporate flavors, feel free to unfollow someone who tweets about the junk that their cat just threw up.

Anything to add?  Things you love or hate about Twitter?  Write it in the comments!

Why do you use Twitter?  What do you get from it?  Everyone has their own answers, I suppose, but I believe that Marcelo Calbucci is way wide of the mark with this post:

I believe the best way to use Twitter is not to follow people that are interesting, or influential, or controversial. You’ll get the most value (and fun) out of Twitter if you only follow people that you know [...] don’t follow me on Twitter unless you know me personally or we have friends in common, so we are likely to bump into each other in the near future.

Twitter (and the intertubes in general) offer you the unique opportunity to free yourself from the constraints of real-world locale (aka “meatspace”). Why not take advantage of it? Expand your horizons.

I’m not sure how I’d describe Marcelo’s attitude: perhaps “conservative” is appropriate. To consider our wonderful new technologies as only an adjunct to previous ways of communicating and socializing is akin to … I don’t know, I can’t think of a good metaphor, but it misses the point, and ignores the possibilities.

Some of my favorite tweeps are people that I only know through Twitter. What about you?

Lightning over Brisbane

Next, from @moniguzman, this picture of the 520 floating bridge in Seattle “floating” in fog, via Twinkle Shots:

520 bridge floating in fog

Thanks tweeples!

Everyone has their own “attention bandwidth” that they can devote to Twitter and other social-networking platforms like Facebook, Identi.ca, Plurk, Pownce, etc. Some people can follow thousands and not bat an eye; others cap their following count at a firm number and have an “add one, remove one” rule.

Here are my own personal heuristics for deciding whether or not to follow someone:

1. Do I feel overwhelmed right now? If not, I’ll probably follow.
2. Have they followed me? Unless they get dinged for some other reason below, I’m likely to follow back.
3. Are they spammers? Dinged without remorse.
4. Do they use a recognizably “real” name, or something like CrazyHippo45? The more real the name, the more likely I am to follow back.
5. Do they use a real photo in their avatar? If not, I’m less likely to follow.
6. Do they tweet consistently? If they have big gaps in their tweetstream I’m not likely to follow.
7. Do they have a reasonable followed/following ratio? I don’t personally care too much about absolute numbers, but if they follow 2,000 people, and only have 20 followers, something smells.
8. Do they post about topics I’m interested in, or topics I’m not interested in?
9. Do they have frequent tweetorrhea (e.g. posting 40 times in any single hour): probably won’t follow.
10. Are they following or followed by people I’m following or followed by? +1.
11. Can they spell? You’d be surprised how important this is to me.

What are your personal rules for deciding whom to follow on Twitter?

How Addicted To Twitter Are You?

• You evangelize twitter to others (5 POINTS)
• You’ve adopted a cartoon avatar for at least some length of time. (5 POINTS)
• You’ve changed your twitter name at least once. (5 POINTS)
• You link Twitter to Facebook. (5 POINTS)
• One of your tags on your blog is “Twitter”. (10 POINTS)
• You check your follower count at least once a day (10 POINTS)
• You’ve made new real-world friends among your tweeps (10 POINTS)
• You have a personal theory of what characteristics make a tweep a good follow. (10 POINTS)
• You’ve integrated a photosharing website with your Twitter account. (10 POINTS)
• You tweet on vacation (10 POINTS)
• You’ve integrated a voice-to-text service with your Twitter account. (15 POINTS)
• You know the nickname of the guy who founded both Blogger and Twitter. (15 POINTS)
• You get giddy whenever you hear about a new Twitter tool or mashup. (15 POINTS)
• You’ve tried at least 6 Twitter clients. (20 POINTS)
• You have an instantly recognizable personal style for all your tweets. (20 POINTS)
• You Twitter while watching a big-screen movie. (25 POINTS)
• You keep Twhirl open all the time so that you can scroll back and pick up missed tweets. (25 POINTS)
• When you wake up, you check Twitter before you check e-mail. (30 POINTS)
• You Tweet your airport code as you rush to get to your connecting flight. (35 POINTS)
• You tweet on the toilet.  (40 POINTS)
• You tweet while visiting a dying relative in the hospital. (50 POINTS)
• You tweet while you drive. (50 POINTS)
• You tweet at a funeral. (50 POINTS)
• You tweet while waiting to be arraigned in court. (50 POINTS)
• You Tweet while using the urinal. (70 POINTS)
• You tweet during a nooner. (100 POINTS)

Add up your points and post a comment!  Share your stories, we’re all friends here.  Feel free to suggest new categories of addiction as well, along with a recommended point scale.

My first experiment was with Brad Williams’ tool, but that appears to be one-way only, from Identi.ca to Twitter.

Another search pulled up kshep’s bridge, which ALSO appears to be one-way only.

Is there such a thing as a two-way bridge?

While I was searching, I saw some tweets that seemed to indicate that there may be a conscious decision NOT to program in two-way updates, due the “closed nature” of twitter and in order to make a “political statement”. Oh snap. I suppose that’s what happens when you get a bunch of talented open-source hackers on a project in an election year

So here’s where I’m at: if I can’t get two-way updates, then I will mainly use Twitter for the near future. If I can get two-way updates, I’ll use identi.ca.

Federation, heal thyself?

The reason?  He’s obviously writing for an audience.  I doubt that John has said “Bloody Heck” in preference to “Bloody Hell”, ever, yet he writes “Bloody Heck” in his tweet.

Turn off your internal editor, John!  When you do, I’ll follow you.

The reason?  He’s obviously writing for an audience.  I doubt that John has said “Bloody Heck” in preference to “Bloody Hell”, ever, yet he writes “Bloody Heck” in his tweet.

Turn off your internal editor, John!  When you do, I’ll follow you.

Who the Hell Cares?

Steven’s apparently pissed that hardworking OBs (Original Bloggers) aren’t getting the respect that they used to, what with the upstarts like Twitter and Tumblr and Plurk infringing on the blogging turf.

I just have one thing to say: for shit’s sake. Get off your high horse already.

Now, as to the question of where Twitter fits in the new evolution of blogging: Twitter and its lifestreaming brethren are definitely blogging tools, if you are smart enough to see blogging in context, and not just as a collection of tools and techniques.  What are the key features of blogging in the historical sense?  Let me take a stab:

• Public
• Personal
• Direct
• Timely
• Subjective
• Worldwide

You tell me how Twitter doesn’t meet those criteria.

Somebody commented on Hodson’s article that his post must have been linkbait.  I doubt it – I just think he’s stuck in a mental trap and can’t – for the moment anyway – dig himself out of his current worldview.  The fact that he came in behind several dozen commenters and tried to turn this into a juvenile “Yay if you’re with me, Boo if you’re against me” doesn’t speak well for his near-term enlightenment.

Do you recognize any of these people?

1. GHOST: Starts Twittering, posts a handful of times, then disappears.
2. NERDCORE: Hopelessly geeky (and proud of it), writes tweets like this: “Linux.com states eDonkey as best P2P client on linux http://lin.cr/rf. But it was shutdown, wasn’t it? Can anyone confirm it?”
3. FLIRT: Writes a lot of tweets with the word “sexy” and “boobs” and “naked” (not necessarily in the same tweet).
4. WHORE: Shameless self-promoter of blog posts.  Has 10,000 followers.
5. WHORE IN TRAINING: Just like a WHORE, but sheepishly apologizes for it every now and then.  Wants 10,000 followers.
6. MR. GUILTY: Endless naughty-boy revelations about alcohol, gambling, or behaving badly.
7. ST. CRISPIN: Today is an opportunity! Carpe Diem! I can’t believe I’m lucky enough to be alive on THIS VERY DAY!
8. HIPSTER: Goes to all the cool social networking events and meets with Loic and Scoble and Guy every month.  Lets you know about it.
9. POLITICAL HARRIDAN: Sends 140-character rants about this or that politician or policy proposal.
10. INQUISTOR: 90% of their tweets are questions to their “audience”.
11. DILBERT: My office is dysfunctional and I sort of like it because I can tweet about it.
12. ZZZ: Sends tweets like “I’m on my 2nd cup of coffee” or “heading home”.

So, which are you? Which other tweeter archetypes am I missing?