User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 1.6678 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
My missing the Twitter boat--really, hating it completely, actually--is, I suspect, the beginning of my slide into societal irrelevance. Soon I'll be seen muttering to myself in shopping malls about "those damn kids" and dispersing stale bread crumbs to the pigeons in the local park...
Well, andrewberg, that isn't quite true. While Johnny Bench and Davey Concepcion were fine twitterers, and I don't want to take anything away from them, the greatest twitterer has to be Tony Perez. Not only was Tony Perez the greatest club house leader I've ever seen, he was twittering even back in 1975. When some new person would join the Big Red Machine, which was a very tech savy team, Tony Perez would twitter them every minute to help them adjust their swing and infield positioning. Unlike new players, that have to rely on the internet to get in their twittering, Tony Perez could twitter without having to use electronic communication devices.
It is a blog post limited to 140 characters, sent from a text device.
It's basically Facebook stripped down to nothing but status updates, isn't it? Which is to say that I'm not sure what the big deal is. Probably I just haven't been paying attention. (After all, I'm one of the few here who hasn't yet accepted a cell phone into my life ...)
Hm. What's so groundbreaking about that?
It's not on newsprint?
Not sure if that's true or not, but I can totally see it.
Edit: I owe mrams an R.C. Cola.
Edit: Oh, I see. You get your own homepage for all of your tweets, and they can be seen by anyone who's authorized by you. So, it's like Facebook with ADD.
Exactly. The signal-to-noise ratio is just godawful. The more feeds you follow, the worse it gets (#14 is exactly right). I keep coming back to Lore Sjoberg's hilarious and spot-on dissection, as true last year as it is now.
So, when's the super-cheesy country music song about it coming out?
Can you text umpteen people at once? (I genuinely don't know -- as mentioned above, I refuse to get a cell phone.) With Twitter, you basically can, I guess.
It has a funny name? Honestly I don't know. It seems like the media has just taken off with it because they want to stay relevant and think this is the hot new thing. I would suspect its much more popular among those in media than it is among regular people. I don't know anyone personally that has a twitter feed.
Shaq uses it.
I'm a person that considered MySpace, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter the latest annoying fad, Twitter is at least mildly functional.
40% is low, but I recently read that the operators of Facebook are facing a difficult struggle with figuring out how to make money with it. With this in mind, I'd bet Twitter is more likely to be around in 5 years in its current form, where Facebook will have to make some changes to pay the bills.
Twitter has a relatively high appeal to advertisers, while Facebook is a space where advertisers are struggling to make either an authentic social-connection with users or high quality ads. Facebook users simply won't tolerate their "personal" space becoming too commercialized. They will flee.
I don't think we have seen the best of what mobile technology will bring to social networking just yet. The near future may bring us a Kindle like pod, featuring foldable, extremely mobile and highly convenient electric "paper".
I don't think that I can access the net on my cellphone. That's a good thing, usually. I spend way to much time online as it is. But I occasionally have the urge to check something out at Sports Reference.
Lifehacker can tell you all of the things you could be doing with Twitter, here. I must admit I'm not doing any of those things with it. And I also must admit that most Twitter posts I read are pretty much incoherent, due to the overuse of abbreviations. I try to avoid that.
The printing press saved people from doing impossible amounts of work in order to publish something. Going from the printing press to the internet saves more work still, cutting out the giant mechanical machines and delivery trucks. Going from the internet to twitter reduces the process of writing and publishing to the least work intensive form yet discovered, but this time it sacrifices things that consumers like - things like sentences and details and interesting thoughts.
Will it bring us the part in which the reality of our social capabilities -- i.e. the ability to effectively and meaningfully relate with only a relatively small number of people at once -- is reflected in the technology? I have like 220 FB friends, and I talk with 12, I think. In real life there are probably 250 people I know enough to where I could probably call them and not have to explain who I am. I talk with 12.
OK, maybe it's jut MY social networking limitations, but the broadcasting component of all if this is just strange to me.
And yes, the fact that I have a freakin' blog is not lost on me. Maybe hypocrisy is one of my other social limitations.
I would agree with this. I advertised on Facebook for a while, and it was worthless. I don't know if Twitter will work -- frankly, I doubt it, since I doubt many Twitter users are searching for "probate" or "estate planning" -- but at least it's free. And people COULD search for those things and possibly find me. (Of course they'll also find me posting things like "[I] would be happy to do [my] part for Cuban-American relations by sending Jose Contreras back to Havana" and "[I] just watched The Iron Giant for Family Movie Night. Brad Bird is 3 for 3 making great films (Ratatouille, The Incredibles, and this)."
What's amazing to me is the extent to which Facebook users think they OWN Facebook. The page design gets changed, and people act like it's the worse thing that's ever happened to them.
Imagine how it feels at 18...
Or the Fall B-side?
Texting works fine with 3 or 4 people at once; I've never tried more at once.
I hadn't looked into it before today, but now that I have, I wouldn't be interested in it. It does one of the things that Facebook does, and it does it worse. (Oh, and I bought the cheapest cellphone I could find, and I still use it to check scores on Yahoo. It's slow, but it works.) OMG get off my lawn kthxbye!
My cubemate claims I should delete my account and that I'm an embarrassment to the internet, but I disagree. I think I am a rousing success.
I would agree with this. I advertised on Facebook for a while, and it was worthless.
I'm surprised. I don't know much about Twitter, but I know FB has a lot of personal information about their users (when it's volunteered, which is often). I get ads all the time for bands that sound up my alley or other things relevant to what's in my profile. I've even clicked on a few of them.
You may, in fact, be my hero.
Huh. I don't think that's ever happened for me. And I'm someone whose lists of favorites (bands, authors, movies, books, TV shows, artists) contain 100s of entries. Or maybe I've unknowingly gone blind in one eye & don't see the ads.
I don't know, I can't stand it and I'm 30. I think the Baby Boomer generation has grabbed onto Twitter with both hands because they want to be relevant and they spent the last 5 years ripping blogs. So, they're grabbing and holding on for dear life. There's some good things, but most of Twitter is mindless drivel.
Twitter has three functions, a status update tool (a la Facebook), keeping up on people of interest, and keeping up on topics of interest. To accomplish this, you have access to all of Twitter’s functions through SMS messaging, its website, or an assortment of client applications for practically every platform.
The combination of all three functions basically creates an enormous ad hoc message board/comment section for everything. Topics can be created, and followed, on the fly, allowing for information to perpetuate, important or otherwise, incredibly quickly. The Swine Flu story basically shot through Twitter before anything else, and that's the difference between it and something like Facebook, which exists in a sort of black box (which, w/r/t things like sharing photos with friends and family, makes perfect sense).
For instance, search for Mets during a Mets game (or obviously any team at search.twitter.com), and you get something awfully similar to a Game Chatter going on, as the results are a constantly updating conversation. Search for Selena Roberts and you'll find a link to the same Jason Whitlock article Esoteric posted to the Newsblog, the same Duke Lacrosse story brought up in that posts comments section, and the same sort of questions regarding her journalistic integrity.
While that's not directly what it appears to be, functionally, that's what it is. If you want to know what people are talking about, or what people think about anything RIGHT NOW, Twitter is a useful tool to that end.
I think the problem was more in the nature of what I was advertising (legal services). I would agree that Facebook ads appear to be well-targeted in general, although they do assume that, because Whit Stillman's Barcelona is one of my favorite films, I would like to travel to Barcelona.
I guess that's my problem, then -- I'm not sure how I could care less, though undoubtedly I'm more antisocial (or whatever the appropriate adjective might be here) than most.
All of Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter are doomed because of their managements' respective inability to figure out a way to monetize them and become profitable.
I would really like to hear how "Twitter has a relatively high appeal to advertisers". Short of bombarding anyone with a Twitter window with periodic keyword ads, I fail to understand this in the least. Facebook has far more demographic information on its users.
Twitter is the most overrated hype machine in the history of overrated hype machines. The fact that its alleged charms keep being lauded by people who really have defective B.S. detectors in the main only serves to make me move contemptuous of it.
When it comes to info, I'm more interested in accuracy than speed myself.
Which is why I find the media's infatuation with Twitter mindblowing. Blogs were ripped because there were no checks and balances and really, no information. Yet Twitter, which is nothing but information immediately (and very little information, more like a headline), is the greatest thing ever. I'll be happy when the Twitter fad is over.
Oh, forget about the crummy music. Who'll star in the classic cult film?
But then what will we do while sitting in our Snuggies and listening to Susan Boyle?
Who's Susan Boyle?
That's it, people, fad is over. It's official, move along to something new. No no, you can't stay here, Daly's here.
The article ends by calling Twitter "The CB Radio of Web 2.0."
So, when's the super-cheesy country music song about it coming out?
"(Well)
I'm just a country boy with the 'Net,
but let me tell you 'bout the best thing yet:
there's this groove (on the intertubes)
enter twitter in the blue E, you're all set!
You can read bits of someone's day,
what's for lunch or who they think is gay.
If you play it right, read it day and night,
you can even find your love, hooray!
(chorus)
I met my lover on the Twitter
she never seems angry or bitter.
When I'm drunk, I don't think to hit her,
she makes my heart go flutter flitter,
I met my lover on the Twitter.
(chorus)
With all that recommending,
this is where your time ought be spending.
Follow Hank, follow Twitty, (Don't you follow Fitty)
and when you're done someone else will be sending.
But caution's underrated,
if people know who you dated:
I met my girl, she blew my world,
she's my sister, we're related!
(chorus)
I met my lover on the Twitter
she never seems angry or bitter.
When I'm drunk, I don't think to hit her,
she makes my heart go flutter flitter,
My lover uses Twitter, she's my sister.
(chorus)
My experience with Facebook so far - in, what, two weeks? - is that it does a pretty darn good job of learning about me. I haven't given much personal info, but I think it can tell pretty well who I'm keeping in touch with, and is using their personal info to target me. I haven't bought anything yet, but I've clicked some ads.
I miss Brunching Shuttlecocks.
A friend, acquaintance or comedian (obviously not sure who it was) said to find out if Twitter is for you, write down (in less than 140 characters) anything you're doing or want to say for a couple of days. Have friend read it & see if he/she thinks it's interesting. If it is tweet, if not don't.
1st I want to repeat my position earlier, Twitter is likely the "latest annoying fad". Also, I said "relatively high appeal to advertisers" compared to Facebook, etc...
I think there are 2 reasons Twitter is being watched as a good ad vehicle. The largest possibility is Twitter being able to sell top results to key search words or questions. Twitter is at its best when users use it like a Google search engine. Only reaching out to real people in real time. Such as, Q: "What kind of wine should I have with dinner tonight, I'm having swordfish and green beans?" Imagine millions of questions like this, Etc....
Companies could possibly pay for the right to get a 1st or 2nd reply. Similar to Google charging for the top search results. The challenge for companies is to find a way to make these ads seem authentic.
2nd, has more to do with Twitter as a tool for advertisers, not so much for Twitter to actually make money. Think of Twitter as a tool that allows product placement, like product placement in a movie. A celebrity could easily interject a branded product use into his/her daily posts. This is a very high quality placement when done right appears authentic and would generate unlimited opportunities to create the right brand fit.
"Twitter fails because it asks the most boring question possible...'What are you doing right now?'"
who's comin with me
The media is not threatened by Twitter. Nobody is seriously going to rely on Twitter for their news, whereas a lot of people use blogs for that. Moreover, media types can use Twitter as a tool to promote their work. That's the difference.
2000 called to remind you that nobody is seriously going to rely on The Daily Show for their news.
Recently I signed up for a facebook account so that I wouldn't be harangued for another 5 years to get some sort of myspace/facebook page. I have to say it is pretty stupid. So far in the two weeks I've had it I've learned that people are bored, sad, having eggs for breakfast, can't wait to get out of school, and what their favorite dogs are. Considering that I almost never ask any of these people any questions that would get me these kind of answers I find facebook to be quite useless.
Twitter would seem to be everything I hate in the internet glorified.
A homely English chick (am I being redundant?) who taught us all that homely people can "have talent" (talent here meaning the ability to sing passably well a song from Les Mis).
Thus exacerbating the two already-awful problems faced by web advertisers:
1) Effectively infinite competition. Unlike physical advertising (billboards) or radio/TV (limited by scarce airwave resources, but much less so in the case of TV these days), space isn't exactly at a premium, or a limiting factor.
2) Low barriers to entry. Anybody can start advertising on Twitter.
You could argue that celebrity placement makes a difference, but really, if their Twit-stream becomes ad-laden, why should I continue following that person?
You pulling my leg? This violates everything that tv and the internet have taught me the past 5-10 years. That only people that are attractive can have talent, that being attractive is a talent itself worth lauding, and that even if someone has no talent but is still attractive, we must treat them like they have talent.
66. Jimmy P Posted: May 04, 2009 at 06:48 PM (#3163603)
[ Ignored Comment ]
Anyone know what Jimmy said here?
Well played.
Sure doesn’t seem to hurt the likes of Google or, well, commercial television.
The Most Interesting Man In The World prefers Facebook, where he is a fan of the Most Interesting Man in the World.
A Semillon from the Hunter Valley
:)
Eh, if it's really 250, then you're above average. Personally, I'm way below average. I use my last name when I call my sister-in-law because I'm not sure if she'll know who I am when I say, "Hi, it's Greg."
A healthy number of those people are superficial business contacts, so numerous because I can't seem to keep a single job for more than five years, while simultaneously not managing to piss people off too much. So maybe a real number is down in the 100 range or so. I certainly wouldn't count these as my actual social group, It includes things like paralegals from two jobs ago whom I nod and smile at if I see them out on the sidewalk downtown.
In other news, I kind of hate civilization and wouldn't mind moving to a fortified compound somewhere.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main