Webware

Celebrities are migrating to Twitter in astounding numbers. Or so we think.

I've set out to determine if the most-followed celebrities (according to WeFollow) on Twitter are really who they say they are. Is it someone pretending to be a celeb? Is it their publicist taking care of the "trivial" task of updating their Twitter profile? You might be surprised to know that most celebrities are really tweeting. And that's pretty cool.

The top 10

Britney Spears is tweeting sometimes.

(Credit: Don Reisinger/CNET)

1. Britney Spears Britney Spears is a celebrity of the first order. But if you read through her profile, you quickly realize that she's only tweeting a portion of the time. When she's not, other people in her entourage are. Britney signs all her tweets with "~Britney." Seems possible.

Verdict: @BritneySpears is the real Britney Spears.

2. Jimmy Fallon Jimmy Fallon tweets on the @JimmyFallon Twitter account. There's no doubt about it. He talks about things only Jimmy could shed light on. And most importantly, he talks about his tweeting on his show, "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon." No worries here: it's the real guy.

Verdict: @JimmyFallon is really JimmyFallon.

3. Shaquille O'Neal Dubbed @THE_REAL_SHAQ, Shaquille O'Neal's Twitter account is one of the most entertaining in this roundup. Shaq posts pictures of himself, sends brief messages out to followers, and unleashes one-liners that will make you chuckle. I don't think there's any debating that @THE_REAL_SHAQ is the real Shaq.

Verdict: @THE_REAL_SHAQ is really him.

4. Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong is definitely tweeting on the @LanceArmstrong account. He tweets about his travel around the U.S. He talks about where he's riding today and most importantly, he uploads personal pictures to his TwitPic account.

Verdict: @LanceArmstrong is the real deal.

5. Ellen DeGeneres Ellen DeGeneres is tweeting on her show's Twitter profile, @TheEllenShow. On multiple occasions she has said on her show that she tweets and a recent update provided a TwitPic link to an image of her mother. She also tends to make references to events in her life that others might not know.

Verdict:@TheEllenShow is the real Ellen DeGeneres

Twitter is growing fast. Grab your name fast! Actually, it's probably too late. But don't give up and settle for a lame name. What you're called on Twitter matters. Here's our advice for picking your name:

1. Don't be afraid to use your real name. There's nothing wrong with using your name on Twitter. I do it. And so does Rafe. Granted, we're public figures, but that's not the point. If you're using Twitter as a networking tool or an opportunity to connect with others for personal or professional enrichment, calling yourself "DarthVader918345" isn't the smartest decision. Use your real name. Those you're communicating with will appreciate it.

If you want to hide, what are you doing on Twitter?

Related tip: Especially if your real name is taken, use your real picture. That way your friends will know it's you.

2. Don't use curse words or obscenity in your username. It's not common, but I've come across some folks who decided to throw some curse words or suggestive concepts into their username. I don't get it. Anyone who really wants to contribute something to the community won't use their username as a vehicle to shock others.

3. Do tell us about your profession or your interests. If you're using Twitter to expand your professional network, you can use your name to tell us what you do. If you're a plumber, say so. If you're an attorney, tell us. There's no better way to attract followers than to give them a hint about who you are. If your followers know you're a plumber, maybe they'll ask you how to unclog a drain. Even better, maybe they'll ask if they can hire you to fix their plumbing. For personal users, if you're a gamer, say so in your username. If you love PCs, we want to know it. Every time I see someone who puts "Yanksfan" or something like it in their username, I follow them because I know that we have something in common. There's nothing better than to have a Twitter dialogue with someone who shares your interests.

Twitter has changed its HTML title tags on user profile pages to make the site more search engine friendly. Instead of displaying its previous title of Twitter/"username," the site's new title displays the person's name, followed by his or her Twitter user name in parentheses and "on Twitter" after that.

The decision to change title tags is already working out to Twitter's advantage. I performed a vanity search on Google to see where my Twitter profile ranked in results for "Don Reisinger." For the first time, it was on the first results page. CNET News and Webware editor Rafe Needleman's Twitter profile is also displayed in the first Google results page when you search for his name.

I made page one (of the Google search for myself).

I tested the new pages with random followers on Twitter to see if their profiles were on the first page of Google results. They were. In fact, I couldn't find one Twitter user who didn't have his or her profile in the first page of Google results. Even Britney Spears' and Barack Obama's profiles were displayed on the first page of their results.

Twitter hasn't commented on the new title tags, nor has it released any traffic data showing the impact of having Twitter profiles in the first page of Google results, but search pages are coveted territory, especially on celebrity queries. They can drive heavy traffic into a site. It wouldn't surprise me if Twitter is witnessing a spike in traffic because of this.

On a side note: Facebook, MySpace, and Friendfeed profiles were rarely displayed in the first pages of search results.

(Credit: Brown University)

AUSTIN, Texas--Someone blogged that South by Southwest Interactive is just like the Internet itself: disjointed, decentralized, scattered, fast, aggressive, random, fragmented, and so on.

In fact, the main commonality between the two may be that the number of attributes to describe them is infinite. Like the Internet, the annual tech conference here is an echo chamber of an echo chamber, a place where original thought and commentary get mixed up and mashed up in a highly self-referential meta conversation.

That was already the case before Twitter entered the scene at SXSW two years ago, but the microblogging service has certainly amplified the effect. It was both comical and frightening to see the uber-individualistic geeksters at SXSW captivated by the invisible rules of an ostentatious behavioral uniformity: within 1 mile of the convention center, you could observe the strange ritual of groups of people standing or sitting together, chained to their iPhones, twittering instead of talking: "SXSW. Twittering about SXSW."

The real conversation was often limited to a quick "What's your name?" or "Where's the next party?" just to have some input for the next tweet. It is indeed a read-write generation that is coming of age in the wake of an all-dominant present, with no particular loyalty to the past and maybe not even an interest in the future (see Peggy Orenstein's recent piece on "Growing up on Facebook" in The New York Times Magazine).

Yet the rise of the social digerati is unstoppable. New data by Nielsen Online shows that social-networking sites (which encompass social networks and blogs, by Nielsen's definition) are experiencing growth rates of twice as much as any of the main destination sites (search, portals, PC software sites, and e-mail). The time spent on social networks and blogging sites is growing at more than three times the rate of overall Internet growth. Furthermore, social networks are gaining traction among new audiences.

(Credit: Henry Chilcott)

Not only because a surgery conducted via Twitter made headlines the other day, Twitter is all the buzz (again). And it seems as if almost three years after its now-legendary debut at South by Southwest Interactive, the popular microblogging service has reached the second (or third) hype cycle, entering the business and media mainstream as the ultimate narrow--and broadcast--network.

As Joel Comm, CEO of InfoMedia and author of "Twitter Power," points out:

It's like the old saying, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." People who use Twitter as only a broadcast system are missing out on 95 percent of its benefits...It's about staying top of mind.

If a brand was to run an ad campaign, and it reached only 1,000 people, it wouldn't be doing so well, but a brand can do very well with 1,000 followers on Twitter because of who they are, and how conversions can reverberate within the community and outside the community.

Consequently, everyone's writing about Twitter again (on and off Twitter), but the conversation orientation has shifted from "what is it?" to "how to"--a sure sign that it will not experience the same slow decline as "Second Life."

A new Pew study on "Twitter and Status Updating" discovers that Twitter users tend to be younger and more mobile than the general Internet population. They also consume more news through the Internet and tend to engage in social activities online differently than everyone else.

The report further says the average Twitter user is "overwhelmingly young," though the average age of a Twitter user is slightly higher than users of most other social-networking services. (Twitter's median age is 31, while Facebook's is 26, and MySpace's is 27.)

Nearly one in five (19 percent) of online adults ages 18 and 24 have ever used Twitter and its ilk, as have 20 percent of online adults 25 to 34. Use of these services drops off steadily after age 35, with 10 percent of 35- to 44-year-olds and 5 percent of 45- to 54-year-olds using Twitter. The decline is even starker among older Internet users: 4 percent of 55- to 64-year-olds and 2 percent of those 65 and older use Twitter.

Yet these numbers are likely to change, as Ars Technica predicts:

Given another few years, it won't be surprising to see widespread Twitter use spread to older and more general Internet users in the same way text messaging has spread to parents and families.

In fact, Twitter often only involves sending an SMS in the first place--maybe some of those parents can keep the momentum going after texting their kids, and start sending updates to Twitter, while they're at it.

The Pew study indicates that there will not only be opportunities for vertical twittering geared toward professionals (Yammer) but also for services tailored to certain age groups: think of a Twitter for seniors to stay in touch with their children and grandchildren as the next killer app.

And then there is what you could call moderated twittering--in other words, attempts to tame the conversation monster for the sake of attracting advertisers. Glam Media monetized its feed for the Academy Awards by offering marketers the chance to sponsor a filtered or edited version of the message stream during the awards ceremony.

As VentureBeat notes, the ad network's editors chose which tweets showed up in the stream and purged those that were inappropriate or off-topic, making it safer for brand advertisers. Aveeno sponsored the Oscars Twitter widget; Glam says it plans to expand the service, dubbed gWire, to include FriendFeed and Facebook streams for future events.

Other innovative ways of twittering can be found in the realm of visualization. Elizabeth Baranik, for example, points out how the ASAE Great Ideas Conference used Twitterfountain for a visually richer feed.

The medium is new, but the challenge is old: it's all about being different. Attention is the currency of any online (and offline) social interaction, and on Twitter, being retweeted is the "sincerest form of flattery," as AlwaysOn puts it (while also providing some suggestions as to how to achieve that).

In the fast, new Twitter, ergo sum world, the formula goes: the more popular your status updates, the higher your social status.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm addicted to Twitter. Each day, it's kept in the coveted second tab in my Firefox window, lodged between Gmail and Meebo. But that doesn't mean it offers me everything I want or that I have no desire for more features.

In fact, I have a list of features I'd like added to Twitter.

Groups

I still don't know why Twitter has failed to add groups to the service. Maybe the company believes that groups would make it too closely resemble a social network, but who cares? Twitter is great, but that doesn't mean like-minded users shouldn't be able to form their own community.

Think of it this way: if Twitter added groups, it would give you the opportunity to have private areas where only your friends and colleagues could converse and it wouldn't stop you from meeting and corresponding with new people outside those groups. There's no downside.

Services like Present.ly and Yammer offer enterprise employees an opportunity to communicate with one another based on groups that are assigned by their employer. Twittermoms.com is an entire site dedicated to bringing mothers who use Twitter together. Granted, those services aren't nearly as popular as Twitter, but they certainly prove that there's a market for groups. And so far, Twitter hasn't delivered.

Tweet filter

I know Twitter has a block feature, but I don't use it. What I'd really like to see is a Tweet Filter feature that lets me block specific kinds of tweets from making their way into my stream.

I don't necessarily want to block everything some followers say, I just want to block the annoying messages like, "DonReisinger is now listening to Womanizer by Britney Spears," followed by, "DonReisinger is now listening to Take My Breath Away by Berlin." To be honest, I don't care what songs a follower is listening to and I don't need updates from a script they're running to tell me.

That said, I do want to see what they're saying when they tweet actual messages. That's why I want Twitter to devise a tool, similar to a spam filter, that would allow me to tag certain tweets, have Twitter analyze them, and ensure that anything of the sort won't make its way into my stream again. That sort of functionality works beautifully in Gmail. I'd love to see it work that well on Twitter.

Unfollow notices

Why doesn't Twitter provide us with daily updates about who unfollows us? It informs us when someone starts following us. Would it be that hard to track those who unfollow us, as well?

I would really like to see who unfollowed me. Maybe those people were upset that I had too many updates on a certain day or perhaps they didn't like something I said. Without a notice, I'll never know they're gone. But with a notice, I can send them a message and ask what happened to possibly repair our broken relationship.

Maybe some wouldn't like receiving additional e-mails announcing when a user decides to unfollow them, but I think it provides significant value. It can give you hints about what your followers do and don't like and it makes you a better Twitter user, since the last thing you should be doing is annoying your followers.

Profile stats

I'd love to know how many people view my Twitter page each day. It's not that I have a vain desire to see how many people are looking me up. Instead, I'd like to know how many of those people become followers.

People find their way to another user's Twitter page, look at the tweets they've been making over the past few days, and decide then if they want to follow them. I've done it. Sometimes I decide that, yes, this is a person worth following. Other times, I see that all they've done is linked to their blog and failed to converse with other users, and decide that following them probably isn't in my best interest.

But having data detailing the number of people who view my Twitter page and how many become followers would be ideal. Based off that information, I could determine the value of my tweets to other Twitter users and experiment to see if I could devise a way to increase my follower conversion rate.

Twitter is all about being part of a community. Knowing what that community likes and doing what you can to appeal to that community is incumbent upon us all. Twitter stream stats would help in that endeavor.

200 characters

When Twitter first started, the service had a strong SMS focus. Because of that, the company wanted to ensure that tweets would fit in the 160-character SMS limit, allowing room for the message and usernames. But as Twitter has grown into a service with a strong online focus, it's blatantly clear that 140 characters is not enough.

I just don't see any justification for providing only 140 characters anymore. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to write a tweet, only to run out of room with just two or three characters remaining. Like everyone else, I'm forced to find places to cut down what I say just to add in those necessary characters.

I understand that those who wish to use SMS might be left out in a 200-character world, but that doesn't mean it should stop Twitter from pursuing this strategy. There are a slew of applications, like Twitterific, that are designed specifically for mobile phones that allow users to update their Twitter stream without using SMS. And although some devices don't support third-party apps and using text messages to communicate with their followers will be practically impossible after the 200-character switch, I think Twitter needs to accept that and move on.

Twitter is a growing service that has moved past its SMS past. It's time its executives embrace its new role as a mainstream microblog and improve the service while being mindful of its strong online presence.

Want to hear Don complain some more about Twitter? Follow him and indulge yourself!

Over the past few weeks, I've quietly researched what works and what doesn't when you're trying to get more people to follow you on Twitter. There are some surefire ways to add followers--promote your Twitter stream to friends, colleagues, or family; say something that's retweeted by thousands of Twitter users; have notoriety; or have your username crop up on sites like CNET that Twitter users frequent.

But for all those successes, I've found many more ways to utterly fail at adding Twitter followers. From begging to stories to gimmicks, there are a variety of ways to make yourself look foolish on Twitter without getting one more person to follow you.

Asking: Laugh, then ignore

Will you please be my follower on Twitter? My username is "DonReisinger" and hey, I'll even throw in a link!

Didn't work, did it?

Last week, I tested this out a few times on my followers by asking them to tell all their followers to follow me, and all I got back was a few snide remarks from followers saying things like, "Nice try, Don" or "Um, no." Unperturbed, I decided to try again later in the day, since I figured a different group of Twitter followers were using the service now and I might have better luck.

Nope.

Asking for Twitter followers is a major faux pas in the world of micro-blogging. First off, most of your followers will probably laugh at your willingness to show how desperate you are for more. Secondly, all your Twitter followers simply don't see that kind of request to their own followers so you can reap all the rewards. What do they get out of their tweet? You guessed it: nothing.

Fake stories: Anger and betrayal

Realizing that asking my followers for help wasn't going to work, I next tried telling them that I had entered into a bet with a close friend to see who would reach a certain follower count quicker. But to make it believable, I had to create an elaborate trail of logic: "A close friend and I have $50 on who can reach 2,500 followers first. Whoever does so, wins the cash. Will you help a friend out and find me some followers?"

Unfortunately, my followers had a few unhappy thoughts to share with me and my obvious ploy to add more. Suffice it to say that family friendliness wasn't a concern in their replies.

But as a researching journalist, I trudged on, trying to find creative ways to add more followers, as more salvos from angry users made their way through my blatant subterfuge and pelted me with tweets outlining distaste for such a tactic.

The Great Retweet: size matters

Retweeting, the act of copying a tweet by another user and sending it through your own username, has taken Twitter by storm. But that doesn't mean it helps you add followers.

I tried retweeting what others wrote to see if it offered value to my own followers, who would then retweet my message and expose me to all their followers, but it didn't work. In fact, more often than not, followers decided to retweet what I did instead of using my username--a practice that probably makes the most sense, since the original person should receive attribution.

Realizing that, I decided to find out if I could get my own followers to start retweeting what I said. At first, I asked them to retweet and once again, that was a mistake. They generally ignored my request, but every now and then, a few followers would retweet my message. It didn't matter: I wasn't able to add any new followers. I think that only happens if the message is retweeted by hundreds or thousands of users. At least, that's what I hear.

More tweets: Lose 'em!

Realizing the direct route didn't work, I tried offering up a slew of updates to see if more Twitter followers would filter in. Once again, I was thwarted in my efforts.

Believe it or not, updating Twitter as often as possible doesn't provide any real value if you're only looking to add more followers. In fact, when I updated my account more than 50 times in one day, I found that fewer people decided to follow me on those days than when I had just a handful of really interesting tweets.

Realizing that, I quickly came to the conclusion that quantity is no substitute for quality. In fact, based on my research over the past couple weeks, I've found that followers respond more to thoughtful tweets than quick snippets about life or the dinner you'll be having tonight. In other words, ditch the quantity idea. It doesn't work.

Performing research on what doesn't work: They never believe you

Realizing all my tactics for attempting to add followers on Twitter was becoming an annoyance, I explained to my followers that some of the updates over the past few weeks were for research on a column I wanted to write. I thought they would understand and realize that, because of what I do for a living, that excuse is quite plausible.

Quite the contrary, I was inundated with responses like "uh huh" and "yeah, sure, Don." And in the process, that didn't help me add any more followers either.

Now, will you please follow me on Twitter? I have this bet with my friend and if you retweet this, that would be really great too. It's fine if you don't; it's all for research, so it's no big deal. But, uh, please follow me, OK? I'll follow you!

The debate over whether you should follow everyone who follows you on Twitter has raged on ever since the popular microblogging service gained traction. Some say following everyone eliminates the real value Twitter provides--connecting with others of similar interests. Others say that following everyone actually provides more value.

But if you consider some of the finer points of following everyone who follows you on Twitter, I think you might come to the realization, just as I have, that following everyone is not just a responsible move on your part, it's good of the entire community.

Nope, there aren't rules, but there is etiquette

There aren't any rules forcing you to follow your followers on Twitter, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

If someone has found you compelling in some way, shouldn't you give them the benefit of the doubt and follow them back? It's not like you can't block them in the future if you think their tweets are inappropriate.

To me, Twitter is all about the community. And by signing up, that community has made the conscious decision to interact and share interests, ideas, and personal information. If someone follows you, they're saying, in effect, that they want to hear what you have to say and care about your ideas.

I don't see anything wrong in following them as a gesture of appreciation and confirmation that you're willing to hear what they have to say, as well. After all, if you want to become a part of the community, isn't it only right that you hold up your end of the bargain and give them the same respect they've given you?

(Credit: Josh Lowensohn/CNET Networks)

The 'noise' argument holds little water

Whenever I discuss my reasoning for following everyone who follows me on Twitter, I invariably receive the same response from those who disagree: "following everyone is too much trouble and you can't find all the conversations you actually want to engage in."

Rubbish.

I currently follow over 2,400 people on Twitter and I've never had an issue finding really interesting and relevant information. Sure, some of it has nothing to do with me--discussions about grilled cheese sandwiches, for one--but there's quite a bit that my followers discuss that I'm interested in. I'd say that more than 80 percent of all the updates that flow through my stream are worthy of discussion. And I don't think I'm unique.

Twitter may be the leader in the micro-blogging space, but it's missing key features--features its competitors offer. Will Twitter pick up on these omissions? We know groups are coming to Twitter, but we're not so sure about some of these other useful features...

Friendfeed: Twitter++

Although some say Friendfeed isn't a direct competitor to Twitter, I think it is. Twitter has one way to deliver content to the service--you type a thought in 140 characters or fewer and post it--but consider the fact that Friendfeed can do that in a flash, as well as import your blog, Flickr photos, YouTube videos, Twitter stream, and countless other update types from services across the Web. It becomes apparent that if you're looking to do more than post a few quick comments, Twitter is inept.

Without doing much work at all, your entire life can be put in full view on Friendfeed. Want your friends to know what you just added to you Netflix queue (or see what movies your friends added themselves)? Check out Friendfeed. Want to comment on new photos your father uploaded to Flickr? Friendfeed is waiting. More services are adding Twitter plug-ins to send links to your Twitter profile, but they're mostly useless: a TinyURL doesn't replace the design, interaction, and usability of Friendfeed's service.

Performing just one task is fine for a while, but as our desire to do more takes hold, it's Friendfeed that satisfies that desire. Not Twitter.

Identi.ca: Open Twitter

What's so wrong with autonomy? That's Identi.ca's model. Unfortunately, it's not Twitter's.

Identi.ca is an Open Network Service with its entire code base made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. It uses the OpenMicroBlogging protocol, which allows friends on other services to receive Identi.ca notices. In essence, Identi.ca's main goal is to give power back to the user and allow them to take their data and source code and create their own micro-blogging service if Identi.ca itself doesn't cut it. That's more than can be said for Twitter.

Sure, it may be tough to monetize that business model, but wouldn't it be nice if you could take your Twitter profile and updates and create your own Twitter network after the service sends you a Fail Whale one time too many? If you're a Twitter user, haven't you come across a slew of issues that you would like to improve? If Twitter was an open platform like Identi.ca, you could take a stab at it. Unfortunately, it isn't and you're trapped in a service that suffers from instability issues and other quirks that can only be addressed by its developers. That's a shame.

Present.ly: Twitter Groups

It may be designed for businesses (more on that in the next section), but Present.ly does something that Twitter doesn't (at least not yet): it allows users to create groups.

Unlike Twitter, Present.ly provides companies with the tools necessary to create their own micro-blogging network on the service and separate all the users into groups. In other words, companies can place management into one group and lower-level employees into others so discussions can be had between members without worry of unwelcome employees joining in.

From a consumer standpoint, adding groups to Twitter seems like a logical move. Friends would be able to form networks around similar interests and, like Facebook groups, Twitter groups would add a whole new level of engagement to the service and create another reason to use it. Get with the program, Twitter.

Yammer: Twitter while you work

Yammer provides the same, basic experience as Twitter, but with one difference: it's for businesses. Much like Present.ly, Yammer provides businesses with the opportunity to create their own, private micro-blog network.

It allows only those with the company's domain name to join an organization's network, which is a sticking point in many businesses employ contractors. But aside from that single issue, Yammer's ability to appeal to businesses highlights a big issue with Twitter: it provides less value to businesses than it could. Granted, Twitter isn't necessarily designed with the business professional in mind, but shouldn't it be? The service has become a hub for individual employees to connect and network with colleagues, but in the process, it has left the companies themselves out of the loop and allowed services like Yammer and Present.ly to pick up the pieces.

As the world's largest micro-blogging tool, it seems only logical to cater to as many customers as possible. With the infrastructure in place already, allowing the enterprise to get in on the Twitter action with access to its huge user base would make the service even more compelling and render Yammer and Present.ly practically irrelevant. The game is Twitter's to lose.

Don Reisinger is a social network addict. Check out his profiles on Twitter, Friendfeed, Identi.ca, Last.fm, and Flickr.