260: In Twitter We Trust
- Thread starter Chuck Wendig
- Start date
I suspect that Twitter (and the trust that does or does not come with it) ends up as a different experience for different people. For some, it grows trust. For others, it replaces the need for it entirely. For others still, it changes little to nothing.whindmarch said:
Depends on the use of it, and one's... well, for lack of a better term, "buy-in" for social media. (Better term = "submission to?")
Again, I think the critical separation for me is Review Vs. Criticism. A review's purpose is by and large to give you a YES / NO / MAYBE breakdown. Do I want this? Do I not buy this? Is this a later purchase, a now purchase, a never purchase? Twitter's "shot-of-liquor" potency factor does well there.
It'll have a hard time replacing criticism, though, because criticism is less concerned with the dichotomy of WANT/DO NOT WANT and far more concerned with nuance and dissection. Hell, we've both partaken in discussions I'm sure that, at the end of the day were plainly not meant for Twitter's 140-character arena, because it takes approximately 725 Tweets to convey a nuanced argument.
That said, it can probably accentuate criticism -- pointing to it, highlighting quotes, drawing attention.
(I guess one issue is, the conflation of "criticism" with "I don't like that," when really I'm speaking more about classic literary or cultural criticism.)
-- c.
That fear is entirely reasonable.syndicated44 said:
The robots will be knocking on your door any moment. I'm... I'm sorry.
-- c.
Very interesting article. I don't really see why you veered towards talking about Google at the end, though; wasn't the main idea that Twitter/word of mouth was perhaps making the standard reviews from big sites obsolete? (I'm being a little reductive for brevity's sake.) So shouldn't the end be more talking about the reviews than Google? I'm sleepy, so maybe I misread.
And I also unfortunately have yet to experience this side of twitter. My twitter is 90% news sites spitting headlines or people I know (but not personally, like say a popular comic book writer) talking about his life. Certainly interesting, but not the personal touch. I could never tweet a question and get a response. Maybe I'm doing it wrong though.. I could never find enough time to commit to regularly putting my thoughts on the internet, I suppose.
Anyway, I did enjoy this. (And am sad that LOTRO doesn't play on macs.)
And I also unfortunately have yet to experience this side of twitter. My twitter is 90% news sites spitting headlines or people I know (but not personally, like say a popular comic book writer) talking about his life. Certainly interesting, but not the personal touch. I could never tweet a question and get a response. Maybe I'm doing it wrong though.. I could never find enough time to commit to regularly putting my thoughts on the internet, I suppose.
Anyway, I did enjoy this. (And am sad that LOTRO doesn't play on macs.)
Huh? Validity has quite a bit to do with it for me. I would certainly trust someone with a relevant technical frame of reference to give me a more useful description of a product than someone who didn't. Then again, I tend to be really choosy in which reviewers I consider more valid. I also don't have many friends who really have a technical frame of reference for games that share many of my tastes; that would certainly factor in to it.chuckwendig said:
Very interesting - I tend to be late to the party and a bit of a hermit when it comes to social media, but I have experienced a bit of that myself. Heck, I do it all the time 'irl' so there's really no difference except one in scale.
I don't think Google's going to become obsolete, honestly. For specific things as you described, maybe, but not overall. It's an excellent springboard when you honestly don't know where to begin researching, or something very specialized that you don't have someone to immediately turn to about. It's also good for more unbiased big-picture views of things - you tend to keep company similar to your interests, ideals and beliefs, and sometimes you need to take a step back.
I apologize - I'm rambling. Your article just got my brain moving a bit about the subject!
I don't think Google's going to become obsolete, honestly. For specific things as you described, maybe, but not overall. It's an excellent springboard when you honestly don't know where to begin researching, or something very specialized that you don't have someone to immediately turn to about. It's also good for more unbiased big-picture views of things - you tend to keep company similar to your interests, ideals and beliefs, and sometimes you need to take a step back.
I apologize - I'm rambling. Your article just got my brain moving a bit about the subject!
Yes and no... I mean i sort of agree and disagree at the same time, it makes sense, but it's only half of the story. You can't always trust your hive just as much as you cant always toss away "outsider" opinions, and let's not get into how difficult it actually is to create a twitter hive populated with like minded people with opinions you can measure and gauge against your own.
They can tell you stuff, they can tell you a fact in which case it doesn't matter where the fact comes from, or you could be told a subjective opinion in which case it again does not matter much because you might have a different one. It doesn't matter, it comes down to your attitude towards it and what opinion you want to believe when you aren't sure and want to be swayed. I don't think twitter and facebook are scalpels at all. Your mind is.
They can tell you stuff, they can tell you a fact in which case it doesn't matter where the fact comes from, or you could be told a subjective opinion in which case it again does not matter much because you might have a different one. It doesn't matter, it comes down to your attitude towards it and what opinion you want to believe when you aren't sure and want to be swayed. I don't think twitter and facebook are scalpels at all. Your mind is.
Isn't Google and social networking sites about two different things?
I use Google for information; it finds sites for me when I want a picture of a star, a definition of "games". It's for when I have a question and don't know where to go for an answer, for when I know a name but not a URL, for when I don't know where to start.
Social networking is about meeting people. It's for when I want to discuss and reach out to others. I know where to go, and I respond to other's opinions and statements, or make some of my own. Social networks are summed up in the name - they about social interaction.
I understand wanting to find out things, more specifically, subjective things such as opinions of a game, and having the choice of both a site-finding tool such as Google and a social networking site such as Twitter. But it's a no-brainer that in the end we will take the advice of those we know over those we don't. Therefore, the social networking site wins in that case. The only exception is when we go to Google with a known reviewer to seek his opinion.
The other point I had I think is already said by others. You did skim a little over the difficulty of creating a following on Twitter, and the personal criteria you have to create and follow for yourself on any networking site to weed out the helpful opinions from the odd, the shallow and the trolls. Sure, you might get 20-30 comments on your blog or Twitter, but how hard did you have to work to get those followers in the first place? And for the person who doesn't feel the need to network so much, where does he go? Google may be his better choice.
Well written and well done, but, really, for me this article pointed out something that was already quite obvious.
I use Google for information; it finds sites for me when I want a picture of a star, a definition of "games". It's for when I have a question and don't know where to go for an answer, for when I know a name but not a URL, for when I don't know where to start.
Social networking is about meeting people. It's for when I want to discuss and reach out to others. I know where to go, and I respond to other's opinions and statements, or make some of my own. Social networks are summed up in the name - they about social interaction.
I understand wanting to find out things, more specifically, subjective things such as opinions of a game, and having the choice of both a site-finding tool such as Google and a social networking site such as Twitter. But it's a no-brainer that in the end we will take the advice of those we know over those we don't. Therefore, the social networking site wins in that case. The only exception is when we go to Google with a known reviewer to seek his opinion.
The other point I had I think is already said by others. You did skim a little over the difficulty of creating a following on Twitter, and the personal criteria you have to create and follow for yourself on any networking site to weed out the helpful opinions from the odd, the shallow and the trolls. Sure, you might get 20-30 comments on your blog or Twitter, but how hard did you have to work to get those followers in the first place? And for the person who doesn't feel the need to network so much, where does he go? Google may be his better choice.
Well written and well done, but, really, for me this article pointed out something that was already quite obvious.
I couldn't agree more with this article, I do the exact same thing (Obviously with a much smaller follower rate, but I get a few good replies back from friends and people interested in my occasional blog)
Just the other day I tweeted asking what was going on with APB and I got a bunch of replies including links and people's blogs.
I retweet most of the good stuff I get sent, so people have a little more incentive to send them through just for more hits.
None the less, whilst I am fully aware of content overflow that comes with Google, I use both Twitter and Google to find out, a little first hand secondary research never hurt anyone and the replies I get through just help me along my information highway.
Good article though =D
Just the other day I tweeted asking what was going on with APB and I got a bunch of replies including links and people's blogs.
I retweet most of the good stuff I get sent, so people have a little more incentive to send them through just for more hits.
None the less, whilst I am fully aware of content overflow that comes with Google, I use both Twitter and Google to find out, a little first hand secondary research never hurt anyone and the replies I get through just help me along my information highway.
Good article though =D
Finding the right tools for the right job is important. I don't like trying to use a flashlight as a hammer. I have found that word of mouth, and trust are two very powerful things. I have found that most of my friends and I have very similar tastes in games.
I would rather have a shared experience with someone I know that enjoys the same things I do than reviews by professionals who might not have the same tastes that I do when it comes to the money I pay for my games. I don't know if I would actually get a twitter account, as I don't know anyone who has one, plus I find it difficult to keep my rantings to 140 characters or less, but that's something I'll have to deal with later.
I would rather have a shared experience with someone I know that enjoys the same things I do than reviews by professionals who might not have the same tastes that I do when it comes to the money I pay for my games. I don't know if I would actually get a twitter account, as I don't know anyone who has one, plus I find it difficult to keep my rantings to 140 characters or less, but that's something I'll have to deal with later.
Problem, for me at least, is that my friends have interests completely opposite to my own. Word of mouth usually ends up in me shelling out $60 for a game I didn't really want (Read Ded Redemption, you can all throw rocks at me later). And it's not that these guys are not friends of mine, we hang out and do stuff, and whatever other shit you do with your friends, it's just that the interest circle between them and me don't intersect very much. Or, if they do, they do only because I pretended it did.
Frankly, I wished review sites did exist, for the sake of it. They give a very general score on a game, and then cause mayhem due to their score, or how they spelled the title of the game, or because he didn't like factor A, when it should have been awesome. To the many who say that the only opinion that matters is your own - I agree wholeheartedly. But, as my experience with the $60 has shown me, it's very expensive (time is another cost, and I don't think I would have gotten past America had I rented it - and consequently started to find the disappointing parts of RDR).
And don't get me started on BookFace. My farm... well, let's just say that I'm waiting for my crops to grow right now. Parasite, indeed.
Frankly, I wished review sites did exist, for the sake of it. They give a very general score on a game, and then cause mayhem due to their score, or how they spelled the title of the game, or because he didn't like factor A, when it should have been awesome. To the many who say that the only opinion that matters is your own - I agree wholeheartedly. But, as my experience with the $60 has shown me, it's very expensive (time is another cost, and I don't think I would have gotten past America had I rented it - and consequently started to find the disappointing parts of RDR).
And don't get me started on BookFace. My farm... well, let's just say that I'm waiting for my crops to grow right now. Parasite, indeed.
While I agree with the concept that social media could and in some cases does provide useful comentary on new releases I would be cautious about ever taking that as a recomendation for or agaisnt purchase of anything without checking out reviews or doing some independant research. This is for the simple reason that when it comes to twitter and the like, while i may trust the opitions of people (or some of the people) i connect with, generally, these opinions are rarely thought through, seldom qualified, and above all else, almost always lack perspective.
Your average game reviewer for example will give you his or her opionion of a game and this will usually include whether they personally enjoyed it, but crucially, they will try to judge the game and all its features and give opinions about what features work well, and which dont. When this kind of considered opinion is sidelined in favour of simply counting thumbs up and thumbs down from a group of people it reinforces the behaviour of companies like EA and Activision who chase numbers above all else and don't care enough whether innovation and overall quality fall by the wayside.
While i don't mean to suggest that twitter and other social media platforms don't have a potentially positive role to play in informing purchasing habits, I do think we should be cautious about placing blind faith in these tools to make these decisions for us.
Your average game reviewer for example will give you his or her opionion of a game and this will usually include whether they personally enjoyed it, but crucially, they will try to judge the game and all its features and give opinions about what features work well, and which dont. When this kind of considered opinion is sidelined in favour of simply counting thumbs up and thumbs down from a group of people it reinforces the behaviour of companies like EA and Activision who chase numbers above all else and don't care enough whether innovation and overall quality fall by the wayside.
While i don't mean to suggest that twitter and other social media platforms don't have a potentially positive role to play in informing purchasing habits, I do think we should be cautious about placing blind faith in these tools to make these decisions for us.