<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Twitter Fiddles, Users Burn</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/</link>
	<description>The World of Twitter and Microblogging</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:17:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dean Peters</title>
		<link>http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/comment-page-1/#comment-3022</link>
		<dc:creator>Dean Peters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 19:27:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.twitterrati.com/?p=848#comment-3022</guid>
		<description>It wasn&#039;t about noise, confusion nor any other user experience issue. 
 
It appears now that it was a scaleability issue all along. 
 
See their response to all the #twitterfail mail: 
 
&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.twitter.com/2009/05/whoa-feedback.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://blog.twitter.com/2009/05/whoa-feedback.htm...&lt;/a&gt; </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It wasn&#039;t about noise, confusion nor any other user experience issue. </p>
<p>It appears now that it was a scaleability issue all along. </p>
<p>See their response to all the #twitterfail mail: </p>
<p><a href="http://blog.twitter.com/2009/05/whoa-feedback.html" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://blog.twitter.com/2009/05/whoa-feedback.htm.." rel="nofollow">http://blog.twitter.com/2009/05/whoa-feedback.htm..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim A</title>
		<link>http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/comment-page-1/#comment-3016</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim A</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 16:53:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.twitterrati.com/?p=848#comment-3016</guid>
		<description>Agree with Ryan here. I THINK the default was to not see @&#039;s for people you don&#039;t follow. 
 
However, why not just leave this option in there? I&#039;m guessing there are performance reasons perhaps.  
 
I just checked the notices page under settings and this option has been removed. There is still the help to the right mentioning it though &quot;The @ Replies setting can be confusing. Read the help article if you&#039;re unsure.&quot; Links to this help article &lt;a href=&quot;http://help.twitter.com/forums/23786/entries/14595&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://help.twitter.com/forums/23786/entries/1459...&lt;/a&gt; </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agree with Ryan here. I THINK the default was to not see @&#039;s for people you don&#039;t follow. </p>
<p>However, why not just leave this option in there? I&#039;m guessing there are performance reasons perhaps.  </p>
<p>I just checked the notices page under settings and this option has been removed. There is still the help to the right mentioning it though &quot;The @ Replies setting can be confusing. Read the help article if you&#039;re unsure.&quot; Links to this help article <a href="http://help.twitter.com/forums/23786/entries/14595" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://help.twitter.com/forums/23786/entries/1459.." rel="nofollow">http://help.twitter.com/forums/23786/entries/1459..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Shu</title>
		<link>http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/comment-page-1/#comment-3015</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Shu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 16:39:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.twitterrati.com/?p=848#comment-3015</guid>
		<description>I can see the value in turning off the noise, but at the same time there should be an easy way for new or lighter users of Twitter to see the @reply traffic as opposed to making them jump through hoops. Not everyone is a well-entrenched Twitter user with overwhelming @replies. Just my $0.02. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can see the value in turning off the noise, but at the same time there should be an easy way for new or lighter users of Twitter to see the @reply traffic as opposed to making them jump through hoops. Not everyone is a well-entrenched Twitter user with overwhelming @replies. Just my $0.02.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dean Peters</title>
		<link>http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/comment-page-1/#comment-3011</link>
		<dc:creator>Dean Peters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 15:14:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.twitterrati.com/?p=848#comment-3011</guid>
		<description>@Ryan Coleman - 2% of 5 million users is 100,000 individuals forced to change how they use the system. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Ryan Coleman &#8211; 2% of 5 million users is 100,000 individuals forced to change how they use the system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dean Peters</title>
		<link>http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/comment-page-1/#comment-3010</link>
		<dc:creator>Dean Peters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 15:03:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.twitterrati.com/?p=848#comment-3010</guid>
		<description>@Ryan Coleman - 2% of 5 million users is 100,000 individuals forced to change how they use the system. 
 
What I wonder is how many of the 100,000 make up the ACTIVE 40% - which I suspect they do - and how many of the 98% make up the 60% Twitter Quitter Attrition Rate? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Ryan Coleman &#8211; 2% of 5 million users is 100,000 individuals forced to change how they use the system. </p>
<p>What I wonder is how many of the 100,000 make up the ACTIVE 40% &#8211; which I suspect they do &#8211; and how many of the 98% make up the 60% Twitter Quitter Attrition Rate?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: While Twitter fiddled, their users burned &#124; Heal Your Church WebSite</title>
		<link>http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/comment-page-1/#comment-3006</link>
		<dc:creator>While Twitter fiddled, their users burned &#124; Heal Your Church WebSite</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 13:52:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.twitterrati.com/?p=848#comment-3006</guid>
		<description>[...] Twitter Fiddles, Users Burn (yes, I &#8216;borrowed&#8217; the title for this post from Mark Evans of twitterrati.com - thanks!) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Twitter Fiddles, Users Burn (yes, I &#8216;borrowed&#8217; the title for this post from Mark Evans of twitterrati.com &#8211; thanks!) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan Coleman</title>
		<link>http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/comment-page-1/#comment-3005</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan Coleman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 13:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.twitterrati.com/?p=848#comment-3005</guid>
		<description>&quot;Before the change, you would have seen the conversation.&quot; 
 
Not entirely true... A small % of twitter users would have seen it. Most already elected (I believe it was default setting) to not see @&#039;s for people they don&#039;t follow.  
 
There&#039;s a comment on this post &gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://tinyurl.com/rctqsm&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://tinyurl.com/rctqsm&lt;/a&gt; that indicates only 2% had elected to see all @&#039;s 
 
I think this will blow over. It sounds like a big deal but I think it&#039;s a great evolution in  how people will form tweets - it adds an extra layer of nuance to @&#039;ing </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Before the change, you would have seen the conversation.&quot;</p>
<p>Not entirely true&#8230; A small % of twitter users would have seen it. Most already elected (I believe it was default setting) to not see @&#039;s for people they don&#039;t follow. </p>
<p>There&#039;s a comment on this post &gt; <a href="http://tinyurl.com/rctqsm" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/rctqsm</a> that indicates only 2% had elected to see all @&#039;s</p>
<p>I think this will blow over. It sounds like a big deal but I think it&#039;s a great evolution in  how people will form tweets &#8211; it adds an extra layer of nuance to @&#039;ing</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: markevans</title>
		<link>http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/comment-page-1/#comment-3004</link>
		<dc:creator>markevans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 13:36:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.twitterrati.com/?p=848#comment-3004</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the insight and perspective about what Twitter users want from the service. What Twitter does won&#039;t please everyone but that&#039;s how business goes. 
 
Mark </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the insight and perspective about what Twitter users want from the service. What Twitter does won&#039;t please everyone but that&#039;s how business goes. </p>
<p>Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Twitter&#8217;s Tweak Takes A Step Backwards&#8230; &#171; Talk is cheap . . .</title>
		<link>http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/comment-page-1/#comment-3003</link>
		<dc:creator>Twitter&#8217;s Tweak Takes A Step Backwards&#8230; &#171; Talk is cheap . . .</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 13:30:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.twitterrati.com/?p=848#comment-3003</guid>
		<description>[...] Check out the full story at: http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Check out the full story at: <a href="http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/" rel="nofollow">http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Ramm</title>
		<link>http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/05/13/twitter-fiddles-users-burn/comment-page-1/#comment-3001</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Ramm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 13:06:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.twitterrati.com/?p=848#comment-3001</guid>
		<description>THANK YOU TWITTER for doing something about endless drather of noise! There are PLENTY of ways for people to find new followers. They don&#039;t have to rely on one-sided conversations with people they already know. 
 
I take my twitter presence pretty seriously. I try to engage in conversations with my (human) followers to make the experience enjoyable. To say that folks did not know that silencing the folks that you don&#039;t follow is a COP OUT! Whenever I join a new website, the first thing that I do is go through my Account Settings, and right there under Notices was a pulldown that let you specify how your Replies were handled (there was even an explanation, if I recall). 
 
People seem to forget that twitter is NOT a democracy. People do not paying to use the service. Biz, Evan and the twitter team get to decide what happen to the service that THEY CREATED. I read one of my followers and he said &quot;Put replies back to the way they were! You&#039;re going to lose a lot of people this way - epic fail&quot; REALLY! You are going to leave twitter because you have a little more work to find new people. Come on, that is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. 
 
I applaud twitter for turning OFF the firehose to make this a better service, and more importantly, an enjoyable experience. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>THANK YOU TWITTER for doing something about endless drather of noise! There are PLENTY of ways for people to find new followers. They don&#039;t have to rely on one-sided conversations with people they already know. </p>
<p>I take my twitter presence pretty seriously. I try to engage in conversations with my (human) followers to make the experience enjoyable. To say that folks did not know that silencing the folks that you don&#039;t follow is a COP OUT! Whenever I join a new website, the first thing that I do is go through my Account Settings, and right there under Notices was a pulldown that let you specify how your Replies were handled (there was even an explanation, if I recall). </p>
<p>People seem to forget that twitter is NOT a democracy. People do not paying to use the service. Biz, Evan and the twitter team get to decide what happen to the service that THEY CREATED. I read one of my followers and he said &quot;Put replies back to the way they were! You&#039;re going to lose a lot of people this way &#8211; epic fail&quot; REALLY! You are going to leave twitter because you have a little more work to find new people. Come on, that is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. </p>
<p>I applaud twitter for turning OFF the firehose to make this a better service, and more importantly, an enjoyable experience.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
