tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1673747533541391425.post1081866416064993940..comments2009-12-06T08:25:08.573+02:00Mark Jacobsenhttps://profiles.google.com/107999162787819355839noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1673747533541391425.post-48912357037639563082009-12-06T08:25:08.573+02:002009-12-06T08:25:08.573+02:00Through news articles, blogs, and an e-mail discussion group I participate in, I get a couple hundred links a day that sound interesting. Because I don&#39;t have time to read them all, I have to make decisions about what to read based on the context or on summaries.<br /><br />With Twitter, there is no context or summary. Worst, most people use short urls. When someone tweets, &quot;OMG! Read this! http://ow.ly/12345&quot; I have no way to make an informed decision, so I&#39;ll just skip it. Blogging seems much better for sharing links.<br /><br />Still skeptical...Reach 364http://www.blogger.com/profile/03529267584917166328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1673747533541391425.post-90989275087187239642009-12-06T05:25:16.881+02:002009-12-06T05:25:16.881+02:00I agree, it&#39;s good for links. <br /><br />I link my Google Reader feed to Twitter, so I tweet the links I find interesting/bizarre/funny.<br /><br />I used to think Twitter was useless also, but then I discovered something awesome on Twitter. I won&#39;t give away <a href="http://www.rightcelebrity.com/?p=6188" rel="nofollow">the whole story</a>, but let&#39;s just say that the key words were &quot;naked&quot; &quot;bathtub&quot; &quot;pizza&quot; and &quot;Katy Perry&quot;.Starbuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02013102906896853767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1673747533541391425.post-80880455776060325312009-12-04T09:42:45.246+02:002009-12-04T09:42:45.246+02:00Twitter is good for funny one-liners and posting links. Other than that, it is schmendricks posting about their latest bowel movements.da kinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10291006601316234458noreply@blogger.com