http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/01/05/twitter-to-expand-tweets-140-character-limit-to-10000/
IMO This will drive more people away from Twitter than it will bring in (new users)
Twitter planning to extend its 140-character limit to as many as 10,000
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
IMO This will drive more people away from Twitter than it will bring in (new users)
I'm fine with this change. It's super annoying to have to be creative to fit within the limit. If they can force an automatic shadow box(like here when a quote is long and you have to click on it to see it in full) after a few lines, it really might just make the experience better.
Then again, I've tweeted once in the last week, so maybe I'm not a heavy enough user to complain.
Then again, I've tweeted once in the last week, so maybe I'm not a heavy enough user to complain.
I'll probably quit Twitter as I did Facebook if this happens and actually negatively impacts the user experience
Complex thought can not often be put into just 140 characters. Forcing all messages to be small hurts the language. In other words, "lol boo hoo" at people complaining about this.
Why do you guys want just quips and headlines? Headlines are such trash.
Why do you guys want just quips and headlines? Headlines are such trash.
Twitter isn't intended to be complex thought. If you think it is, you're kind of missing the boat. It's intended to be an efficient way to convey information quickly. And while the character limit can be frustrating, it forces efficiency with language.
Big thing this shows is essentially an admission from Twitter that they can't build a business model with the current format, which isn't surprising and I've been saying since Day 1. Disappointing as I think it's a great service now despite not being a great company.
Big thing this shows is essentially an admission from Twitter that they can't build a business model with the current format, which isn't surprising and I've been saying since Day 1. Disappointing as I think it's a great service now despite not being a great company.
Theres 1,000 other social media platforms for people to post their long diatribes on. I use Twitter for work, sports and news.
Twitters 140'characters made it different and great. Post 120 characters and a link if you need more space.
Not everything needs to be for complex thought. Go read a Facebook feed itd wager 99% of it is inane banter.
Brevity is the soul of wit. If I want longer diatribes, I'll go to facebook.
If you go to twitter looking for complex thought you're missing the point.
I'm no expert, but removing the one thing that differentiates your product from the multitude of other platforms seems like a bad idea.
Unless you can't make money because of that very thing. I hate that Twitter is doing this or considering doing it, but they're cooked if they don't.
It's pretty interesting to see why that is. With Facebook, the algorithms they use prevent posts from being seen by everyone, so advertisers pretty much have to pay in order to get their message to everyone they want to see it. With Twitter, it isn't the case because there is no algorithm - you have your timeline and you see everything people you follow post. So advertisers figured out it was easier and cheaper to just pay people who already had big follower numbers to advertise their product, and Twitter gets cut out of the deal completely. No one clicks on "sponsored content", but you can bet your ass that Kim Kardashian fans retweet the shit out of something she posts with a Twitter handle of a product in it.
So the combination of brevity and lack of algorithm essentially kills Twitter's ability to make money, but makes it great at the same time. They're fucked if they change, they're fucked if they don't. This just buys management some paychecks.
You know what sucks? Screenshorts. The word, and the thing to which it refers. I believe that Jack was making that point by tweeting this announcement as a screenshort. The Web is fundamentally linked, accessible, searchable hypertext. Screenshorts are none of those things. I really like Twitter (I use EasyChirp on Windows, and Tweetbot on Mac/iOS). I love the brevity inherent in the 140 character limit, but I'm willing to see it die if it takes screenshorts with it. Retweets, hashtags, faves (and, ugh, likes) are all features of the default Twitter client that were introduced to facilitate things users were already doing. Killing the 140 character limit is just another instance of that.
Exactly. So they are going to kill twitter in an effort to make money off it because so much money is tied up in it waiting for the money to start rolling in.
Even though there was never a plan or even a concept on how that would happen other than "social media" and "millions of subscribers". GJGE.
Even though there was never a plan or even a concept on how that would happen other than "social media" and "millions of subscribers". GJGE.
Sorry I got off-topic there for a bit. Long and short is that it won't, but they need to try it because they're fucked if they do nothing. The forced brevity essentially forces advertisers into an image-based advertising system because it essentially prevents any longer communication. Facebook has short ads, but you can pack a lot of content into Facebook after clicking them. You can't on Twitter. So the format of Twitter essentially created the black market for ads it now needs to destroy in order to make money. Will it kill the product? Sure. But the product doesn't make money anyways, so it's not like they're destroying something that was a good business to begin with.
What is wrong with a 140 character blurb with a link to your 10,000 character pile of drivel like we have now?
Why can't they implement a YouTube type model (minus the Rev share with content creators) where the user is subjected to occasional ads when clicking a link from a tweet?
Why can't they implement a YouTube type model (minus the Rev share with content creators) where the user is subjected to occasional ads when clicking a link from a tweet?
I'm guessing because at the moment that pile of drivel is hosted (and owned) elsewhere. And that site gets to advertise while serving up the drivel and gets the click-throughs/data on any onward traffic.
Instead of un-restricting the tweet size, why not implement the ability to host the larger article/comment/whatever that a tweet links to directly on twitter, but just not send it out with the tweet?
Then you get the ability to search/highlight that is mentioned and you keep everything in your (twitters) control to monetize however you are able to do so.
I think your guess is a good one. If Twitter wants to attach YouTube-ish ads to content or make Facebook-ish content deals, it needs to keep people in TwitterWorld and make it harder for them to wander away to www.whatever.com.
Hosting content seems to be exactly what Twitter intends to do.
10,000 characters is not why I go to Twitter (and the amount of copyrighted stuff getting posted, let alone mis-attributed etc. is going to be nuts. Bye bye paywalls.)
But a bump up to 250 or 500 characters or so would be nice. That's room to articulate a strong, concise point without having to abbreviate words and squish sentences together. I briefly used app.net's Alpha (community-focused Twitter clone) and the 256 (I think) limit there was refreshing.
But a bump up to 250 or 500 characters or so would be nice. That's room to articulate a strong, concise point without having to abbreviate words and squish sentences together. I briefly used app.net's Alpha (community-focused Twitter clone) and the 256 (I think) limit there was refreshing.