Talk:Twitter

Vodaphone UK

Edit the technology section, O2 UK can use the short code now as well. 83.67.39.175 (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Added; thanks for the shout! Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Untruths

"and has brought to the web the kind of shorthand notation and slang commonly used in SMS messages"

Believe it or not, the internet had slang and shorthand way before 2006. :O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.196.211 (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockington

I see Sockington has been removed from the See Also section because there are many other people who became famous/notorious via Twitter. Is there a way of linking them to here? A list perhaps? Otherwise if there are not enough for that they could go in the template. I'd do it but I don't know who they are. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Twitter is a parent to so many children. For example, the article on Website could, in some views, link to pages about specific websites. But they'd be far too many. Similarly, linking to Twitter users is highly impractical. Furthermore, Sockington is not notable enough to gain superior mention over other articles. The best thing to do is put him in Category:Twitter (as has already been done). Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OK then - I just didn't realise how many there were (thought it might be half a dozen tops). Totnesmartin (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Security

I think that the lack of security ought to be mentioned one way or another. I've heard of many hacks recently involving Twitter. 21:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.238.158 (talk)

Usage section

The way the Usage section exists now seems like a cluster of trivia. Is there a way we can break it down into sections? I'm just going to be bold and break it into sections.--The lorax (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Other Uses Section not Neutral

The other uses section, particularly the bit about the NHS does not follow NPOV. Things like the quotes just around the word "lies" give this section a subtle but present POV slant. Perhaps a whole quote could be used in place of this particular sentence. I also think that better wording could be used to make this paragraph neutral.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, I think the whole Usage section needs work. It's got far too many short paragraphs, and plays hell with the Table of Contents. Perhaps some headings should be excluded from the TOC? Anyhow, I preferred it when it was done by year. Sure it wasn't quite as clear cut what it was talking about, but it was surprisingly readable. Oh well, such things have been lost now. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Having complained, I've now done something about it. Whilst not perfect, it's better than before. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Content of tweets

What's the rationale behind this section? It's a study by a single company, with no independent coverage. It's only taken a small selection of tweets, so probably not a fair amount to provide any accurate insight into anything. The section merely comprises a subjective list of content categories, and then a series of numbers which prove nothing and are, as before, very much subjective. It's unacademic, proves nothing and doesn't really have a place in this article. Surely? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This section definitely should be expanded, as at the moment, it is just one company's opinion on how tweets can be classified. This seems pretty important in explaining the essence of a tweet.--The lorax (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand it's an interesting concept, and probably one that should be mentioned in the article. But I feel it could be done justice in a paragraph (possibly even just a sentence) and a whole section gives undue weight to a single subjective opinion. In its current state, it has no reason to remain. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Tweets and People cannot be found in search

I have signed up to Twitter and we are a charity organisation and wanted a way of communicating to our members. However, new Tweets do not appear in seach. And when searching for our charity's name, people can't find us. It appears to be a bug with Twitter. So how do people find us?

The help pages were useless. Yet, looking at another (help) web site, it seems this is a common problem and has been outstanding for several months. And people complaining that Twitter will take months to respond!. So why not put this common problem in the FAQ?.

It is problems such as these that will limit Twitter's success. And frankly, if they don't reply by next week. I will be shutting the Twitter account down. Sadly, our charity spend money on getting the site updated to mention that 'we are on Twitter now'. ONly to find that the service is crippled.

I don't understand why they don't take advertising on their site, this way atleast they can pay for more staff or programmers etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.24.109 (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

PEOPLE TO FOLLOW ON TWITTER. PLEASE FOLLOW: @BaddThadd and @Piratexbites17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.41.76 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

UK SMS access to twitter

Currently says only O2, orange and vodafone can use it, however Three customers can as well:

http://twitter.com/devices

SMS to 86444, needs updating, but I can't log in at work! It would prove I wasn't working?!

The Twitter Hack of 2009

Should somebody include the current event of Twitter being hacked by the "Iranian Cyber Army?"WinnrChezbergr (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does Twitter not allow searches based on account name or owner?

I see that a cottage industry has sprung up around the idea of a sort of directory or yellow-pages set of listings for twitter accounts. I find it strange that Twitter itself doesn't seem to offer this function. For example, if I wanted to know if Joe Blow has a twitter account, why can't twitter tell me quickly and exactly if there such an account?

How can I follow Joe Blow's tweets (if he has any) if I don't know the correct twitter url to access them?

I've set up a few twitter accounts and tested the search function but they simply don't show up. What kind of bone-head functionality is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.130.47 (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Searches and hashtags (Technology section)

Searching for "term" does not only find tweets with "#term" in them. It also finds tweets that contain "term" without the hash. Searching for "#term" finds only the hashtags. Please correct that section. 76.24.169.192 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)