The list of my brethren

The arrival of the Twitter List will mean — well, nothing useful, really:

Ultimately, lists are nothing more than filters, built-into the service instead of achievable through TweetDeck or other clients. They’ll further devalue the following/follower numbers, and give numbers-gawkers something else to track. That’s the extent of it.

As a TweetDeck user, I haven’t had much occasion to play with the list function, which is called Groups therein; this is mostly because I couldn’t think of any reasonable criteria for setting up groups. Ultimately I outlined — but never actually implemented — the following scheme:

  • Women I lust after greatly;
  • Women I lust after somewhat less greatly;
  • Guys.

And TweetDeck’s Groups function, I suppose, will be ultimately supplanted by Twitter Lists, simply because they’re supported by Twitter. I have noticed that TweetDeck, since 0.31, has dropped support for tr.im and has added features for bit.ly, which has been anointed as The Official URL Obscurer Of Twitter.

Meanwhile, I muddle through the best I can, without Groups or Lists or What-Have-You.





14 comments

  1. Eric »

    3 November 2009 · 7:53 am

    I agree. For me, lists are a solution in search of a problem.

    OTOH, I don’t have the problem of trying to manage tens of thousands (or even tens of tens) of Twitter contacts, so I’m probably not the user they were targeting when they came up with the idea.

  2. fillyjonk »

    3 November 2009 · 8:22 am

    Mine would probably be more of a Venn diagram: people I “know” from Ravelry, people whose blogs I read, people I “know” from other realms of life – and all of those can have possible “ands” linking them.

  3. Andrea Harris »

    3 November 2009 · 8:39 am

    I can’t figure the darn thing out. I have no idea what to do with it. And the message I got said “don’t tweet about it” because it’s still in beta or something, so I can’t even tweet any other tweeters for advice.

    Bah, social media sucks.

  4. CGHill »

    3 November 2009 · 8:46 am

    If it’s any consolation, practically no one observed the “don’t tweet about it” restriction.

    I’m thinking that it’s just one more complication that I may not need; I’m not so overwhelmed by tweetage that I have to spend any time trying to organize it further.

  5. sya »

    3 November 2009 · 10:16 am

    I’m starting to use the list feature to connect to people I don’t necessarily want to follow all the time. Which is great for Nanowrimo. I don’t want my tweet stream to be constantly bombarded with word count updates from several hundred participants and their mother. (Of course, there’s me, but I try to limit my wordage squeeing to a couple times a day rather than every ten minutes.)

  6. CGHill »

    3 November 2009 · 10:21 am

    I knew someone had to find value in this feature. (But will it be worth anything on the first of December?)

  7. Terry »

    3 November 2009 · 11:29 am

    I’m with Andrea – I haven’t figured the thing out, either. But I’m definitely not their target market. I only follow 50 people, most of whom I have some other acquaintance with (blog, such as you, etc), with the remainder being news outlets and tech-junkie feeds.

    Of course, I’m not very social media – my Facebook friends are all, well, friends, online and ftf.

  8. fillyjonk »

    3 November 2009 · 1:51 pm

    And your original list designations might just be a way of getting a fairly large number of women ticked off at you. (Some for being on the first list; some for being on the second. Sadly, we are like that sometimes.)

  9. CGHill »

    3 November 2009 · 2:33 pm

    And by “fairly large,” I read “100 percent.” Which is another reason not to implement such a thing. I am required by the Contemporary Guy Code, however, to indicate my level of shallowness on a regular basis. :)

  10. sya »

    3 November 2009 · 3:39 pm

    I suspect that when December 1 rolls around, my listed numbers will go back to zero and my followers back to pre-October levels.

    As for your putative list categories, I’d be quite amused if they were disguised by semi-enigmatic labels like “ice-cream sundae”, “broccoli”, “durian” and “U-235”.

  11. CGHill »

    3 November 2009 · 3:59 pm

    Oh, I’d have to do that, just to avoid being Extremely Obvious.

    I know a few people who would qualify as durian, but they’re not being followed. :)

  12. fillyjonk »

    3 November 2009 · 5:54 pm

    If I were going to do a “list feature,” I’d do exactly what sya suggested: pick random, vaguely Aristotelian categories and use them. And not tell anyone what they meant. (because they wouldn’t, actually, mean anything.)

  13. CGHill »

    3 November 2009 · 7:06 pm

    You’d be surprised how many people are mystified by the “Almost Yogurt” category around here. Or maybe you wouldn’t.

    Inexplicably, I’m on 13 lists now, though most of them seem to be state-related, a characteristic which is at least comprehensible.

  14. D. Jason Fleming (deejf) 's status on Thursday, 05-Nov-09 00:29:21 UTC - Identi.ca »

    4 November 2009 · 6:29 pm

    […] Why I haven’t started any TwitterLists: these would be my three classifications, too […]

RSS feed for comments on this post