As I work on my Twitter case study (highlighting how different brands are leveraging the platform, tied to the 2 x2 I wrote about a little while ago), I’m becoming ever more intrigued by the different ways different people use the platform. With that on my mind, I found the difference between the messages in two articles I found today quite interesting.

The first is an article from the Globe called “Seriously Short Stories“, which highlights how a variety of authors are trying to develop a knack for micro-stories – those told based on the limits of Twitter (i.e. 140 characters at a time). The second is a post from Shel Holtz, which talks about Twitter as a gateway to substantive content – focusing on tweets that link to some greater content (blog posts, videos, etc.). These are two very different mindsets.

So in the first case, some writers are fundamentally changing how they communicate with their audience. As Clare Bell says in the article:

“The trick is to get the entries so they fit into the Twitter format, so they’re not choppy and they draw the reader into the next one. There’s also much more of a focus on clarity since these posts are going to be separated in time.”

Indeed, that is quite a trick. And while I guess I can see how some people might find the approach quite interesting, I personally don’t like it at all. I’m way, way more into the Twitter as a gateway to substantive content model. In fact, that’s how I found Shel’s post – through a re-tweet from Mathew Ingram, one of my preferred gateways.

In fact, I’ve found myself changing my twitter activity based on this perspective. Like many people (even if they care not to admit it), I can find myself getting caught up in gross follower / following counts. But recently I’ve started culling my following list on regular basis, and my primary filter is whether the individual’s tweets tend to be a gateway to substantive content (i.e. links to stories of interest to me), or 140 character messages about their thoughts, activities, etc. (which I almost always find useless and/or annoying). And as I become more “ruthless” in cutting people, I’m finding that the value I get from the platform grows substantially, as more and more noise drifts away.

Of course, that’s just me – and one of the great things about Twitter is that you can choose to engage with the platform any way you want. But what I’m personally  hoping for is that less great writers/ authors /thinkers try to alter their craft to fit their stories into 140 character chip shots, and more use it to point me towards their well-articulated, well thought out arguments / stories.

I’m also wondering if there is some way that I can filter messages from particular individuals so I get only their links to more substantive content. One of my biggest struggles on Twitter right now is figuring out what to do with a collection of people I follow who regularly point me towards some interesting stuff, but tend to surround it in the noise of tens or hundreds of @replies, “thanks!”, etc. messages that drive me nuts…

Editor’s Note: this is a re-post. The original can be found at www.denisbhancock.com.