Top Social Networking Sites

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 10 Mar 2009, 00:59

I've just this minute joined Twitter so that I can follow Russell Brand and Billy Gould from Faith No More

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Mar 2009, 12:57

I attempted to follow some celebs but after all the text speak bollocks my head started to hurt, it had to go.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 10 Mar 2009, 14:33

Lol... saddest thing ever.

As if so-called celebrities have anything remotely interesting to say.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 10 Mar 2009, 15:20

Last time Russell Brand had something interesting to say, it got him fired....

tpr007 · Post by **tpr007** » 10 Mar 2009, 17:01

bradavon wrote:How did it click for you?

Facebook is a very useful tool indeed. I now check t most days, see what my mates are up to.

It clicked when I and a few other people were all responding to each other over the same topic. I don't think it could have worked that way via facebook, and MSN (for me) is just an at home/laptop type thing.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 10 Mar 2009, 17:04

Surely Facebook works just the same way: Someone posts a status, and then people comment on it and the comments extend down in a list, how is that different to Twitter?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 10 Mar 2009, 19:24

Yi-Long wrote:Last time Russell Brand had something interesting to say, it got him fired....

That wasn't interesting.

He should've got fired just for being an annoying cunt.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Mar 2009, 23:31

Markgway wrote:As if so-called celebrities have anything remotely interesting to say.

Return when you've bothered to Google whose on Twitter and know what you're talking about

.

Markgway wrote:He should've got fired just for being an annoying cunt.

Nah. He would've been suspended, enough of, enough. Besides you cannot exactly fire someone whose already left.

Although I have "yet" to work out the benefit of Twitter. It's nice you can chat directly with people you're a fan of but it's so full of Text Speak it drove me nuts.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 11 Mar 2009, 11:17

bradavon wrote:Return when you've bothered to Google whose on Twitter and know what you're talking about .

Who cares which celebrities are on Twatter?

A bunch of knob heads no doubt with nothing remotely interesting to say IN TEXT SPEAK(!)

Why is this society so obsessed with celebrity?

Would you eagerly follow every word of a brain surgeon? No. But 'ooh a celebrity...'

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 11 Mar 2009, 11:53

Markgway wrote:A bunch of knob heads no doubt with nothing remotely interesting'

Return when you've bothered to Google whose on Twitter and know what you're talking about

.

I agree it's largely a waste of time but I disagree there aren't any interesting people, groups or organisations (such as The Beeb) on there but then as I've actually visited it I'd know.

Would you eagerly follow every word of a brain surgeon? No.

I eagerly follow every word of one film critic if that counts.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 11 Mar 2009, 18:27

You know as well as I that the users who get most hits will be the most vacuous twats with the biggest egos.

Any group that's actually interesting will have it's own constantly updated website (ie. the beeb).

Just imagine a Cheryl Cole blog:

Got up.
8 Bfast.
Make up 4 hrs.
Skip lunch.
nap
Skip tea/dinner.
Fukd Ash
Got pissd on wkd
Beddybies

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 11 Mar 2009, 18:44

Markgway wrote:You know as well as I that the users who get most hits will be the most vacuous twats with the biggest egos.

Seriously instead of constantly replying please do some research, you're so wrong. You'd think so but not in this case.

Markgway wrote:Any group that's actually interesting will have it's own constantly updated website (ie. the beeb).

TV didn't replace Radio, likewise Twitter doesn't replace Websites. They're work with not against each other.

Markgway wrote:Just imagine a Cheryl Cole blog:

That would be hideous, most in my experience are like that. Twitter isn't a blog. No offence but come one

.

p.s - Anyway this is a silly argument, we're both essentially agreeing, just that you should do some research first.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 11 Mar 2009, 18:50

I'm following Russell Brand because everything he types on it makes me laugh, and I'm following the guy from Faith No More because he's using Twitter to keep us all updated on the band's situation and I'm hopefully off to see them in June. Both persons are responding to some people's comments on there as well.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 11 Mar 2009, 22:15

bradavon wrote:Seriously instead of constantly replying please do some research, you're so wrong. You'd think so but not in this case.

How do you know I've not already checked?

Twitter isn't a blog. No offence but come one .

I don't know what category it comes under. I used the term 'blog' because it seems similar in that someone posts updates and people subscribe to read them. I don't really care enough to find out. But you can tell me if you wish. 8)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 11 Mar 2009, 23:21

Markgway wrote:How do you know I've not already checked?

Because if you had, you wouldn't be saying Stephen Fry (one of the biggest twitters in The UK) was a vacuous twat, maybe you would.

Markgway wrote:I don't know what category it comes under. I used the term 'blog' because it seems similar in that someone posts updates and people subscribe to read them. I don't really care enough to find out. But you can tell me if you wish. 8)

A blog is basically an "online diary". Twitter is more comparable to "online sms". Due to the online nature, you can subscribe/interact with both.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 12 Mar 2009, 11:43

bradavon wrote:Because if you had, you wouldn't be saying Stephen Fry (one of the biggest twitters in The UK) was a vacuous twat, maybe you would.

Maybe I would? Just because Fry is an intelligent sort doesn't mean I need to follow his every word. Besides that's ONE person. The rest will no doubt be twits like Russell Brand or other half-baked comedians.

A blog is basically an "online diary". Twitter is more comparable to "online sms". Due to the online nature, you can subscribe/interact with both.

Jeez. You can post on a blog, no? So big difference, yeah? Not.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 12 Mar 2009, 12:43

The rest will no doubt be twits like Russell Brand or other half-baked comedians.

Bit of a silly comment Mark that's just begging to be proven wrong. A simple google search on "celebrity twitters" will do that. Can't say the craze appeals to me at all, but there does seem to be a rather diverse selection of high-profile folk taking it up. Barack Obama had before the whole inconvenience of becoming President! (He needs to get his priorities right).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Mar 2009, 13:07

Just because Fry is an intelligent sort doesn't mean I need to follow his every word.

Regardless that doesn't make him vacuous, which was your point.

Markgway wrote:Jeez. You can post on a blog, no? So big difference, yeah? Not.

Big difference yes?

Seriously at least bother to have a look before shouting your mouth off. If you had actually bothered to look you'd have seen Stephen Fry mentioned, he's one of the biggest twitters in the UK (maybe world).

In other words: As Shing. says. I can see why people would like to follow Obama, Fry or even The Beeb (different way of accessing the info). At least unlike Mark I've actually given it ago, before shouting my mouth off.

Facebook on the other hand, now that's useful. My past three night outs have been thanks to it.

p.s - It's also worth remembering Twitter isn't just about celebrities. You can follow what your friends/family are up to too. As you can on Facebook.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 12 Mar 2009, 13:58

I looked at the Stephen Fry page and it's boring. No useful info whatsoever. Don't believe me?

http://twitter.com/stephenfry

All it is is inane chatter. Yes, I know that's it's purpose, but that doesn't mean I have to go along with it. Now if it was a debate between Fry and fellow users on politics or something like that I could see the point.

But this?

"8:54 AM Mar 10th from Tweetie in reply to Joe_90(In case you need to know: chicken soup and a Salad Niçoise to make a Frenchman glare. Sardines and no anchovy. Sheesh, whadderyagunnerdo?)
8:52 AM Mar 10th from Tweetie Enjoying Kindle so far. Text to speech highly embarrassing in little Lexington Ave lunchery. 3G wireless on the go, has a browser. Mm. x"

etc...

GET A FUCKING LIFE PEOPLE!!!!!!!

Friends and family, Brad?

Buy a fucking phone. Or e-mail them. Why do this boring shit in public??

Shingster -- I had a quick look yesterday for Celebrity Twitters before making my post and there didn't seem to be all that many. Certainly few I would consider famous. Surprised to see Obama on there (not that he does it himself - it's his staff); same with Schwarzengger. They use it like a Bulletin Board. Achingly dull and nothing you couldn't get from any official website.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Mar 2009, 14:20

Markgway wrote:I looked at the Stephen Fry page and it's boring. No useful info whatsoever. Don't believe me?

Yep it's hideous.

Markgway wrote:Friends and family, Brad?

Buy a fucking phone. Or e-mail them. Why do this boring shit in public??

It costs a bomb to have a phone conversation with more than one person, especially internationally.

TBH I found Twitter largely a waste of time, so will explain why Facebook beats e-mail in certain examples:

I want to meet up with several friends for a beer. Sure I can use e-mail but in order for each person to know who is coming you have to presume everyone will click "Reply to All". Then if they do your Inbox quickly gets flooded with e-mails.

Facebook means everyone can see who is and isn't coming, and keeps it on a neat online page.

Another example:

I've not seen a mate for a few months/weeks. I'm meeting up with them soon. Facebook allows me to see what they've been up to, so I can have something to talk about.

Another example:

I'm at home, don't want a lengthy phone conversation but do want to see what my friends are up to. I have a quick 5-10 check on Facebook an can see what my 30-40+ friends are up to.

Another example:

Facebook also has fan pages, so you can speak to like minded people. It also has Events, so you can see what's happening in your local area (although the search in this aspect sucks). You can also start an Event, letting friends/family/everyone know you have a party on XX date.

Another example:

You can tag yourself/friends faces in photos, which means that photo appears in their profile, under "photos of me". You can now see photos of yourself, but not just ones stored on your hard drive. Friends can naturally comment on said photos too.

Facebook enhances my social life, doesn't replace it or replace e-mail. To give an example here:

I wanted to contact just the one person the other day. I popped her an e-mail as sending a Message to one person on Facebook struck me as a bit pointless.

Twitter on the other hand, struck me as lots of text speech and didn't offer real value. I can well believe it could, it's not just the likes of Chris Moyles using it.

Markgway wrote:Achingly dull and nothing you couldn't get from any official website.

Maybe but in the case of the BBC News website at least, I find it all a bit cluttered, making it hard to find the specific articles that interest me. I did find the BBC's Twitter page useful but in the end opted to use the BBC News RSS feeds instead.

Clutter is a massive problem for many large websites. The interface quickly gets so bloated.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 12 Mar 2009, 14:58

I heard Obama has a Facebook page too, but like Mark says I doubt he actually does that himself.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Mar 2009, 17:01

It seems there are many Fake FB pages but the Twitter ones are legit.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Mar 2009, 19:24

I've thought of another reason why Facebook is so useful:

When I went travelling in 2002 all we had was e-mail. Sure e-mail is fine but even e-mail requires to to make the effort to find the e-mail address (scribbled on a piece of paper a few months prior), sit down and write the e-mail. Sure you could say, if you cannot do that, they're not really friends but I've found at least you start the friendship away on holiday and it's solidified when you meet back at home.

Okay fast forward 7 years and a friend went travelling about a year ago. Facebook has allowed her to keep in contact with people (all they have to do is remember your name and search for it on Facebook) and because of the nature of Facebook keep up with what her friends are doing, therefore sparking further interest to stay in contact.

It's also allowed her to create an event to meet up, with this you can see:

* Whose confirmed to come, obviously everyone else invited can also see this.
* Who cannot make it
* Who hasn't yet confirm either way

I wish I had Facebook when travelling

. Most people are lazy at keeping in contact with long distance friends, anything that can help that is a good thing in my book.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 13 Mar 2010, 16:07

Does anyone use Twitter here? What do you use it for? Am I missing out? Should I be using it?

I tried it several months back and didn't get it. I can post status updates already in Facebook and cannot stand text speak, which it's full of.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 13 Mar 2010, 16:22

I personally think it's only useful for celebrities. A friend of mine recently set up a Twitter account, to which I responded, 'you're not famous enough to warrant a Twitter account'

As you say, you already post status updates on Facebook, and Twitter is just that on a larger scale, posting comments to the world rather than just your friends basically.

Bullets 'n' Babes

Top Social Networking Sites

Re: Top Social Networking Sites

Re: Top Social Networking Sites