<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>chrisbrogan.com&#187; thenewphone</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chrisbrogan.com/tag/thenewphone/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chrisbrogan.com</link>
	<description>Learn How Human Business Works - Beyond Social Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:30:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Twitter Needs Two Channels</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisbrogan.com/twitter-needs-two-channels/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chrisbrogan.com/twitter-needs-two-channels/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:34:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ceb</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cafeshaped]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[productmanagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[socialmedia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thenewphone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisbrogan.com/?p=2967</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In thinking a bit more about cafe-shaped conversations, I&#8217;m wary of how Twitter (and by twitter, I mean one-to-many communications platforms, because let&#8217;s agree that Twitter is generation 1 of something not yet fully realized), wary of how Twitter can become quite a lot of noise and not enough signal. The thing is this: Twitter [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://flickr.com/photos/gabu-chan/54223589/"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/32/54223589_c5eb381a69_m.jpg" alt="bullhorn guy" align="left"></a> In thinking a bit more about <a href="http://www.chrisbrogan.com/cafe-shaped-conversations/">cafe-shaped conversations</a>, I&#8217;m wary of how Twitter (and by twitter, I mean one-to-many communications platforms, because let&#8217;s agree that Twitter is generation 1 of something not yet fully realized), wary of how Twitter can become quite a lot of noise and not enough signal. The thing is this: Twitter is two things- the commons and a platform. I think we need a two-channel Twitter. </p>
<p>
<h3>Disclaimer First</h3>
<p>
Dear Ev and Jack and Biz &#8211; I am <em>not</em> in the Twitter needs lots of features camp. I am not. We saw what that did to the others. You made the right move, even when every pundit was clamoring for more. So, please, it&#8217;s okay to disregard this advice along with the rest. Maybe I&#8217;m just using you as a placeholder for *.next-wave-of-what-Twitter-has-shown-us-should-exist.</p>
<p>
<h3>Two Channels: Commons and the Platform</h3>
<p>
The commons is all the @ messages, all the &#8220;I love Newman&#8217;s Own Organic Coffee at McDonalds&#8221; tweets. It&#8217;s the place where the real relationship building happens. The platform is where one says those things that might be of value, or of informational impact, of serious-ish and worthwhile note. </p>
<p>This permits people to opt into one of three types of feeds: commons only, platform only, or everything. It&#8217;s similar to the &#8220;only show me @ messages for people I&#8217;m subscribed to&#8221; option. </p>
<p>Some people love the commons. There&#8217;s a whole lot of people who want to have the full-featured conversation inside Twitter. I do. I love it all. I like the variety. </p>
<p>But others don&#8217;t want to use Twitter this way. They want it to be a very powerful platform for conveying data. That&#8217;s fine, too. Nothing wrong with that. I think there are lots of different ways people are looking to use the service. </p>
<p><h3>Why This is Harder Than Just Satisfying Me</h3>
<p><ul>
<li> There&#8217;s no mechanism in SMS for this. So a tweet from SMS would get dumped into whatever the default was (presuming the commons).</p>
<li> It means a rewrite to the API.
<li> It means more rows in the database.
<li> It means a lot of app changes, and some usage changes.
</ul>
<p>
<h3>Why It Just Might Be Worth It</h3>
<p>
Because the same functionality, some kind of &#8220;gate&#8221; factor, would allow for on-the-fly groups, would allow for &#8220;team-only&#8221; messaging, and would allow for some features I haven&#8217;t even really considered in this post. </p>
<p>
<h3>One More Thing</h3>
<p>
How <em>I</em> would do the Commons and the Platforms segregation would be as follows:</p>
<ul>
<li> Tweet without a prefix: commons.
<li> P [body of tweet] &#8211; Platform
<li> C [body of tweet] &#8211; Commons
</ul>
<p>
Similar to the DM function, D, and the @ function, @chrisbrogan. Just give a P and a C function call. </p>
<p><strong>**Update:</strong> Per <a href="http://www.chrisbrogan.com/twitter-needs-two-channels/#comment-147485">Howard Greenstein&#8217;s comment</a>, I had another idea. What about &#8220;E&#8221; for emergency information. Used like: </p>
<p>E They just bombed Mumbai!!! (which should pop to the &#8220;alert&#8221; status) or whatever. Things like Amber alerts and the like would be in this category. </p>
<p>
<p>
Throw stones. Agree. Disagree. </p>
<p><em>Photo credit, <a href="http://flickr.com/photos/gabu-chan/54223589/">Gabu Chan</a></em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chrisbrogan.com/twitter-needs-two-channels/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>180</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

