Twitter Isn't About Conversation - It's About Forming Groups

Hello, I'm David Cushman and this is my first guest post on /message. My regular blog tells you more than you're likely to ever want to know about me, so introductions over, I'll begin.

What's Twitter for? Most think it's about conversation.
It's very good at it. It enables conversation - and open, exposed, social conversation at that - in a way that facebook's closed-focus cannot compete with.

But Scoble stuck in his stirring spoon over the weekend when he asked if Twitter really is about conversation.

"Just watch twittervision.com for a few minutes and see how many real "conversations" you see there. Not many," he tweeted.

Robert reckons most of the action on Twitter is simply updates of the "I'm having breakfast in NYC," variety.
I wonder how much of that sense is about the scale of your follower/friend numbers? Scoble obviously has an abundance of followers and friends. He tries to match like for like (ie he's following over 20k people).
Perhaps more IS different, as Clay Shirky says (we discussed this a little here in a post about fame).

I follow closer to 300 and am followed by a roughly similar number (if you take out the spam etc) and I try to match like for like for the possibility of conversation. Direct messages and @s work better when you follow who follows you - you both get value rather than one broadcasting at the other. And conversation works pretty well for me at that scale.

But I do get Robert's criticism (if that's what it is?) that Twitter is actually a load of people broadcasting status updates into a niche (their current adhoc community).

That clearly is going on.

That's not what Twitter is for. But it does help us towards what Twitter is for.

Twitter is for forming groups - communities of purpose. Communities of purpose may be adhoc. They may come together to solve a shared problem for a short period and then disband, often with overlaps, as they evolve toward the next purpose.
And Twitter is exceptional at doing this - because of its architecture, because of the fuzzy-edge nature of the way groups form, reform and evolve.

The open sharing of our metadata, in the form of 'status updates' or 'look at this conversation-starting link' or 'look who I'm talking to' kind of tweets help us find our right-now community of purpose and start a conversation within it.

Ideas lead to conversation. Conversation leads to action. Action creates value.

In other words: Twitter is where the conversation starts - not where it ends.

Comments

[Richard M Marshall]

Speaking as someone recently drawn into a community of purpose by David, I agree completely with the analysis. Previously to that I viewed Twitter the same way John Cage's described poetry: having nothing to say but saying it anyway.

I'd characterise Twitter as being a sort of community noticeboard. You pin up your notice and if someone wants to buy your lawnmover they call you. But some of those notices might be for conversation groups or raising Clay Shirky-style acitons, and a conversation trail kicks off.

And this differs dramatically from classic chatrooms/facebook because it's open to anyone who wants to join - not just people who have decided to lurk in that chatroom or to a self-defining circle of friends.

[Chris LaBossiere]

David:

I totally agree and have found that my Twitter usage has changed recently. I have added more local friends, and the conversation has become more relevant to me. Also, I have made real contacts with people that can extend into my day-to-day life.

I still enjoy the perpspective of being the fly-on-the-wall as I follwo leader in certain verticals like finance and politics, but I am enjoying the communities that are starting to build for me locally as well.

[denise young]

Right on, David, this sums it up perfectly.

[david cushman]

Thanks Richard, Chris and Denise for your thoughts and support! Best dc

[Jo]

I haven't tried following a celebrity so I don't have a contrast. As newbie, I find it much like a good university coffee room or pub. You can drop in and out without anyone bothering whether you are there or not, and almost always find someone to ask if you have a 'general knowledge' question.

Companionship without a schedule.

[eaon]

'he's following over 20k people'
Scoble may have 'followed' 20k but whether he pays diddly squat attention to any of those is moot.
More and more I'm siding with the idea - as described nicely here by Ariel Waldman' http://arielwaldman.com/2008/03/28/one-size-does-not-fit-all/
that many so called web2 'celebs' are in fact using
the likes of twitter in an 'advertising-like mindset of reaching numbers rather than niches'