msgbartop
Social media analytics for decision-making
msgbarbottom

17 Aug 09 I’m not so sure about the Twitter Retweet API

For a long time, I’ve thought that retweeting was the most interesting thing about Twitter – and not just explicit retweeting, but also implicit retweeting (people posting the same URL around the same time, which may or may not really be an intentional retweet).  I’ve thought of them as similar to links in hypertext and like others, I created a site that analyzes relationships among people by looking at their retweeting patterns.

This may sound odd, but making a user action easier for everyone is not always a good idea.  An overly simple explanation for this is that the less effort it is to do something, the less significant the action becomes.  That doesn’t mean that everything should be hard, it means there’s an optimal level of difficulty v. reward in social behavior.  I’d rather not see Twitter encouraging a particular kind of social connection until the structures it supports are better understood.  Has anybody really shown the value of retweeting in creating strong social networks?  If so, it it clear that the API would tend to further strengthen them?  I fear that the API is motivated by a more naive assumption – people are doing this anyway, so let’s make it easier.  While that assumption is fine for things like soap, it isn’t right for social behavior.

I’ve been doing social media analytics for a long time.  One of the things I’m always trying to measure is how much energy went into a particular user behavior or action.  For example, a message that contains more original words took more energy than a shorter one.  A message that quotes more than one person takes more energy than one that quotes just one person.  A message that contains a URL probably took more energy than one that doesn’t.  If the URL is unique in the medium, it probably took more energy to create than a URL that already existed.

If the effect of the retweet API is to make retweeting so simple that the act of retweeting loses much of its significance, that’s a net loss.  More people might retweet, but less of them will be deeply engaged.  Social systems should never have the goal of getting everyone to the same level of engagement.  It is human nature for some to be opinion leaders, but they don’t easily emerge when “playing the game” is made easy for everyone.  Unfortunately, the idea of getting as many people as possible to be as active as possible is a deeply engrained habit in the media industry.  But any successful community manager or analyst will tell you that it is far more important to pay attention and nurture the “core community” that exists in any social network.

The sweet spot for ease of retweeting lies somewhere between it being so hard that only the most committed users do it (and the current manual method is far better than that) and being so easy that everybody essenially “votes” on everything, which would be bad.  Even though that sounds like democracy, it is really demarchy.  Seen any successful demarchies?  I didn’t think so.

I’m not so sure that Twitter isn’t already in the sweet spot and the API is going to drive it away from there.  I suspect that Twitter and those who analyze it haven’t had enough time to really figure out how it will fit into the social networking ecosystem in the long run, so any decsions about this are premature.  I’d rather see them continue make the social network easier to analyze, not just for the sake of analytics, but because the results of analytics are getting fed back into the network, which makes the network smarter and smarter.

Tags: , , , ,

18 Jul 09 Developers unite – throw off the yoke of Twitter centralization and publish your tweetstreams!

“At the end of the day, Twitter is a prototype.”  That’s a comment on Dave Winer’s blog by Chuck Shotton, who created one of the first web servers, long before most people had even heard of the Internet. Chuck’s main point is that Twitter is a good idea, but it should be implemented as a distributed system, not a centralized one.

Dead on, Chuck.  I’m not in any way faulting Twitter by agreeing with Chuck.  There are good reasons that they are succeeding where others have failed at microblogging.  It is good that they are demonstrating the broad appeal and usefulness of this kind of communications.  The problem, as Chuck nailed it, is that they are centralized.  Compare this to blogging, which was designed from the start to be decentralized.  There are dozens of blogging platforms that you an run locally, on a rented host or at a site dedicated to hosting blogs.  Choices, choices, choices.  But if you want to tweet, there’s only one way to do it – Twitter.

One reason Twitter succeeded where others failed is that it has a good API and is extremely open when it comes to sharing data.  The default, unlike most other social media companies, is that all of your data is open to everyone, except for direct messages.  That’s fairly radical and perhaps more than anything else, has inspired developers to create many, many Twitter applications.

I caught the bug myself, attracted by the volume of data that is easily available.  I threw together TwURLed News, not with the idea of building a company around it, but because I wanted to see how well something like it would work.  It wasn’t very hard to built, has a back end that requires a BSD machine worth maybe $1,000 and the front end runs on a very low-cost hosting provider.  Amazing.

Still, I can’t believe this is the future of microblogging.  Instead of running applications that use the Twitter API on our desktops, it seems much more likely that we will end up running something like the Twitter API ourselves, which talks peer-to-peer instead of client-server.

Consider how Twitter and Google have opposing information flow.  The Google model is that people publish information on web servers, then Google’s robots gather the data. To access Google, you use a standard web client.  In the Twitter world, nothing gets published until and unless it is pushed to Twitter’s servers and a lot of the people who read Twitter-published information do so using custom clients.  I guess you can rationalize this by arguing that Twitter is getting its users to do all the work that Google’s robots would otherwise do, but that’s a terrible idea.  As Chuck pointed out, it doesn’t scale.

Consider also how different Twitter’s data flow is from blogging.  When you post a blog entry, you’re usually also publishing it as an RSS feed.  Outfits like Technorati (and Google, of course) send robots out to read those feeds and make them available via the web or newsreaders.  People call Twitter microblogging, but instead of encouraging people to tweet locally and make the tweetstream available to anybody who wants to retrieve it from your site, as with RSS, Twitter says no, you have to send your tweets to Twitter and then they become available to the public.  The pain of that centralization is already hurting Twitter, as developers complain about being unable to get even a single user’s entire tweet history, about being unable to search more than a few weeks’ data and other limitations.

So, here’s a thought.  How about if every Twitter application developer throws off the yoke of centralization and adds local (or hosted, via XML-RPC) RSS publishing as an option?  This is relatively simple for desktop apps – it could use the same mechanisms as RSS. It could actually be an RSS feed tagged as a tweetstream, so that anything that reads it will know that no entry will be more than 140 characters, expect hashtags, “@” screen names, etc.  Phone apps could use a proxy to do the same while continuing to publish the tweetstream on Twitter.

Imagine the services that could bloom if everybody’s tweetstream were available without haing to rely exclusively on Twitter and its limited resources?  In no time at all, we’d see comprehensive indexing and other value-added services.

So, why not?  I’m not suggesting anyone abandon Twitter, I’m just saying that microblogging will take off much faster if Twitter developers realize that they don’t have to depend only on Twitter to publish their tweets.

Tags: , , ,