Twitter to Expand 140-Character Limit With New Product

[SteveW928]

I thought I was the only one that didn't "get" twitter.

I like the 256. It's computer-y and give just enough more room to make a complete thought without overly diverging from Twitter's 'thing.' (of course, with images and video and such... maybe they've blown that already!)

I do really like the ability to comment on a re-tweet though, so all their new ideas aren't bad.

But, I think Twitter's biggest challenge is that it's quickly becoming just a bunch of schedule-bots dumping content in. Once that saturates, everyone will stop reading them... the end.

 

[SteveW928]

So you're saying that Twitter is just a glorified group text message.

That's why I use Facebook instead. I only use Twitter when I want to contact someone who isn't on Facebook.

Heh, text messages (the cell phone ones) are archaic. I wish I could somehow make those go away, and get everyone AT LEAST using something like AOL-IM or iMessage, etc.

But Facebook? The only thing it has going for it is lots of users. It has to be one of the worst conversation platforms there is. Old BBS systems were far superior for communication.

 

[SteveW928]

Could be good, could be bad. I would lean towards bad. The character limit forces a clear and concise message which inherently reduces long, wordy, rambling posts - similar to the one I just posted.

I wouldn't want a long character limit, as then it wouldn't be twitter. But, IMO, 140 chars is just SHORT enough to fit in dumb slogans, but not long enough to communicate an effective response, or carry much of anything important.

 

[jpgr15]

I wouldn't want a long character limit, as then it wouldn't be twitter. But, IMO, 140 chars is just SHORT enough to fit in dumb slogans, but not long enough to communicate an effective response, or carry much of anything important.

Yeah, I can understand that. I think that every Twitter user can relate to committing grammar atrocities in the name of fitting the entire tweet under the character limit.

The important thing I suppose is just finding a good balance. I think most people just don't want it to turn into another Facebook

 

[ipedro]

So you're saying that Twitter is just a glorified group text message.

That's why I use Facebook instead. I only use Twitter when I want to contact someone who isn't on Facebook.

You don't understand Twitter and that's ok. Plenty of people find it extraordinary useful for following real time events, discussing politics and even organizing movements.

 

[santydolby]

holy ****! usernames should have never counted towards the 140 character limit. It is annoying and makes you commit those undesirable, visually unpleasing shortenings and grammar murders.

 

[jsmith189]

That's why I use Facebook instead. I only use Twitter when I want to contact someone who isn't on Facebook.

I'm the complete opposite lol.

I think a character limit increase would be good. Nothing drastic, maybe 200 characters. It can be just a little bit too limiting at times. Usernames and links should never have counted towards the limit anyway.

 

[ignatius345]

Could be good, could be bad. I would lean towards bad. The character limit forces a clear and concise message which inherently reduces long, wordy, rambling posts - similar to the one I just posted.

Brevity is the point of Twitter. There are already a million places on the Internet to ramble on at length.

I know a lot of people in comedy who are good on Twitter *because* of the limit. Reeling in a joke in 140 characters is not easy, and shows you're good.

 

[ignatius345]

It's really difficult writing something with the 140 char limit.

Which is exactly the point.

 

[jblagden]

Could be good, could be bad. I would lean towards bad. The character limit forces a clear and concise message which inherently reduces long, wordy, rambling posts - similar to the one I just posted.

But it can also cause a user to abandon correct spelling and grammar, and it can actually make the message harder to understand. It also can force you to use text messaging abbreviations/shortcuts, which I can't stand.

 

[12vElectronics]

140 is good enough. Just remove user names and links from the character limit.

 

[SteveW928]

But it can also cause a user to abandon correct spelling and grammar, and it can actually make the message harder to understand. It also can force you to use text messaging abbreviations/shortcuts, which I can't stand.

Harder to understand or taken the wrong way, for sure. Sometimes it works, but often tweets amount to slogans.

As my theology professor used to say, the problem is often not in what is said, but in what's not said.

140 is good enough. Just remove user names and links from the character limit.

I suppose that should be tried first. The 140 character thing is kind of the brand-identity. But, I agree that while I love the brevity of Twitter, that's also part of the problem. And, since they added images, video, twitter cards, etc. brevity is effectively gone anyway in terms of UX/UI (one could fit a LOT of words in that space).

As my theology professor used to say (which probably applies here as well), the problem is often not in what is said, but is in what is not said.

There is a limit to how accurately you can convey an idea briefly... and Twitter too often forces people under that limit, I think. Slogans might get popular, but they are often problematic too.

 

[lucianmarin]

I am doing this with Sublevel for over a year now. Twitter is a dead product.

 

[C DM]

I am doing this with Sublevel for over a year now. Twitter is a dead product.

So dead that pretty much everyone uses it and it's completely mainstream as opposed to most of these other products that barely anyone has heard of or uses.

 

[ignatius345]

I am doing this with Sublevel for over a year now. Twitter is a dead product.

Cool, let me go add all my friends on Sublevel... oh right. They're not there. None of them.

 

[jpgr15]

But it can also cause a user to abandon correct spelling and grammar, and it can actually make the message harder to understand. It also can force you to use text messaging abbreviations/shortcuts, which I can't stand.

No doubt about that. I myself am guilty of many Twitter grammar atrocities.

 

[jpgr15]

But it can also cause a user to abandon correct spelling and grammar, and it can actually make the message harder to understand. It also can force you to use text messaging abbreviations/shortcuts, which I can't stand.

FWIW, IMHO, the worst offender has got to be.

 

[WaxedJacket]

Great, more characters for longer soap box rants

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

I agree but I think links are already not counted, at least the first one. But having to exclude twitter handles and hashtags would help solve this problem.

Links are still counted although it automatically shortens the link - at least that's what the official Twitter apps do. So you end up losing I think 22 characters per link but no more if the link is longer. I'd suggest taking all hashtags out too but I already find it annoying when people put loads of hashtags in tweets.

 

[0007776]

I thought I was the only one that didn't "get" twitter.

Nope, not at all. I don't see the draw to it either.

 

[morespce54]

Anyways, 640K ought to be enough for anybody.


Whops, wrong thread...

 

[JackANSI]

Anyways, 640K ought to be enough for anybody.


Whops, wrong thread...

First time I've got a good lol out of MR in a long time. thank you

 

[C DM]

Nope, not at all. I don't see the draw to it either.

Plenty of things that plenty of people don't "get" or simply don't care about or don't have use for, doesn't really say anything about those things one way or another, especially to anyone else who might have use for them, or care about them, or "get" them.