More Twitter types
I find the different uses of Twitter fascinating. The complexity of its use derives from its simplicity, people can take it and find their own mode of communication, rather than a specific usage being prescribed by it. So, if we take the over-used (by me anyway) metaphor of an ecosystem of technologies, Twitter is successful because it is highly adaptable, it can occupy different niches in the ecosystem.
In my last post I asked the question whether someone who had lots of followers but didn’t follow many was ‘misusing’ Twitter. I accept ‘misuse’ was the wrong word, since it implies there is a ‘correct’ use of Twitter, and of course people are free to use it anyway they like. As Alan Levine says in the comments, one should be wary of rules. What this led me to reflect on though was the various uses people have for Twitter. Over at Read/Write web they suggest three Twitter personalities: Listener (you follow more than follow you), Talker (you have more followers than you follow) and Hub (you have equal followers and followed). Incidentally, I really don’t like their ‘Twitter score’ – the number of followers divided by the number you follow, since this implies it’s ‘better’ not to follow people.
Their three personality types are useful, but it’s more complex than this. I’ve had a go at coming up with some other types of Twitter usage. This is just a way of thinking about how we use Twitter, not implying that people must conform to one of these types (see the point at the end).
- Twitter as added bonus – Stephen Downes says that he has Twitter followers (who get his Facebook updates), but doesn’t follow anyone. I’m one of Stephen’s ‘followers’, so although I know he doesn’t use Twitter much, it’s worthwhile following him just as part of my network. Stephen makes the point that he reads over 500 blogs and does lots of commenting/linking, so for him Twitter is a very small part of his ecosystem. It is an added bonus for the followers if they wish.
- Selective interaction – users with a large number of followers may choose to only follow a few people, but then use the @ reply function for interaction. For instance Will Richardson and David Warlick both have in excess of 1000 followers, because they are prominent edubloggers. Faced with this, they only follow a few people, but still manage to be active Twitterers, by putting out calls on Twitter, e.g. getting people to say hi to a live audience. Here the asymmetry of Twitter works well, because if anyone does an @ reply to them, they will see it, even if they are not following that user. So this type of user has the added bonus, plus some of the interaction.
- Small scale social interaction – a lot of my OU colleagues follow each other, some other people they know and not many others. For them Twitter is about maintaining a social interaction with people they know, as Laura puts it, sharing a virtual office with them.
- Wide peer network – with roughly the same number of followers and followed, these users see Twitter as maintaining a wide peer network, both with people they know in ‘real’ life and those they have come across through online interaction. If I had to be in a category, then this is probably me. I follow roughly the same number as follow me (although the two are not equal, ie there are some I follow who don’t follow me and some who follow me who I don’t follow back), and I see Twitter as a means of maintaining a social and professional network with these people.
- Large scale users – think Scoble, GapingVoid, et al people who have lots of followers, and who also follow large numbers. These differ from the wide peer network in scale and because theirs is a network built up by fame, not just social contacts. They are similar to the added bonus user, but they are also very active in interaction.
- Listeners – as the Read/Write post suggests, there are people who prefer to follow lots of others, but don’t really want to post themselves. They see Twitter as being rather like a blog reader, it’s another way of staying up with their subject area.
And if it needs stressing – all of these are ‘valid’ uses of Twitter, in the same way ‘lurkers’, ‘active posters’ etc. were valid uses of forums (remember how people used to agonise over lurkers?). What is also interesting is that you can vary within one user. For example, I am generally a wide peer network kind of user, but I also have a small scale social interaction subset, and the type of post I put up may vary depending on this. So perhaps this is really a classification of Twitter uses, rather than users.
Ze Frank (http://twitter.com/zefrank) is currently into Twitter in a big way:
Twitter with its bizarre/random limitations and restrictions is a retreat for those craving fuzziness? A cave? Like in Plato’s cave, maybe, but here the shadows are 140 characters long.
Ahhh, I like this reframe! Still mulling it over, as there are going to emerge other types.
Interesting types – similar to wikipatterns in some ways – although there isn’t the same learning curve to twitter so less likely to occur, one other type is not about following people at all – but following – things – your path to enlightenment e.g. innertwitter( http://innertwitter.com/), colour (re Mashable this week http://mashable.com/2008/03/19/twitter-color-wars/), news / politics / emergency response / language learning etc
Barb in Nebraska
Interesting post! I find that I have 3 different sets of followers. They are people in education, people who are Catholic and people who just look interesting. Twitter is just fun and I have learned so much with this new tool.
I fit into that “Wide Peeer Network” – I’m using Twitter to communicate with other ed tech colleagues and increase my personal learning network – it has been priceless and has been a wonderful gateway into communicating with the collective brilliance of ed tech specialists I meet at conferences. An added bonus has been to guess WHY some of the non-ed-tech people that follow me, follow me.
I pick and choose whom I follow on Twitter because I don’t want to be distracted by noise and I use it to build relationships.
I both socialise and learn via Twitter, so I weed out feeds that feel like spam or are so personal as to be irrelevant to all but an innner circle of that person’s friends.
I don’t feel I could truly follow hundreds nor would I want hundreds of followers. For me, it would dilute the value of Twitter has to build relationships.
Good stuff. I am interested in the diverse ways people and communities make use of Twitter. I didn’t see the categories in the original study applying to me or most of my Twitter group (and said so when I posted that link to del.icio.us)… your conception makes a lot more sense.
I’m slowly working on a paper about how different users and groups use Twitter and the asymmetry of the communication is of major importance (obviously).
Nice article. I like to think of myself as a selective interaction type, but not nearly enough time in the day to tweet and reply. By the way, I see you are a twitterlights user, I’m adding some information about that at our blog.
There is another category of use you might want to add to this list and that is using Twitter for certain events or purposes. For example, I only use twitter at conferences to follow activities and find out what presentations or resources other conference goers are enjoying or find worthwhile. Sometimes I use Twitter for a teaching activity that may last a week, or be several weekly activities over the semester. But other than these specific purposes, I don’t use Twitter.