Talk:Twitter

140 characters - can anyone explain?

What I was hoping to find in this article was an explanation to why the tweet limit is 140 characters for compatibility with SMS messages, when the SMS character limit is 160. Does anyone know why? U-Mos (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be space for the username, the maximum being 14 characters plus the colon, hence the restriction. I know that's been answered before somewhere. If you can find a reliable source for it, you may add it in the article. TwoBitSpecialist (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Tweetup"

The word has officially been added the the Oxford English Dictionary and is now a verifiable use of modern day English speech and requires an article. Note that several have been deleted in the past for an unsustainable reason. Woowootrain (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

New Twitter

How do I activate the new twitter? Thanks --93.82.14.35 (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to twitter.com for information on using their service. To the best of my knowledge the new interface (also called "newtwitter") is being rolled out randomly, and those who have access to it see a message at the top of each Twitter page saying "Pssst... the new version of Twitter is here" with a button marked "Try it now." If you haven't seen that message it means you have to wait until it's rolled out to you.

There is an option to switch back to the old interface during the session. I'm unsure whether you eventually get committed to the new interface if you don't switch back, because I don't like the new interface that much and I don't want to risk losing the old one. --TS 01:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"Pointless babble" -- Re: Pie Chart

Is there anybody here editing an encyclopedia who really believes anything can be classified between pointless and not pointless? Worse still, the link goes to the page for small talk, which lists as its example one person asking the other how they are. Asking somebody how they are is pointless babble? No. The goal of the inquiry is to identify the other person's condition.

If you disagree, then you're challenging the sincerity of the asker's concern, something that can't be assumed.

I understand this is a reference to an article and not original content. However, it's still misleading and confusing for people who are reading this page literally. I also understand that the paragraph following the chart's explanation challenges the chart's contents, but its prominence is far less than the chart itself, which relatively dominates the entire page in terms of image size (and possibly cognition).

What I can conclude from that is in this article, the truth is hidden in small pieces among large pieces of false inflammatory propaganda. OhSqueezy (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "pointless babble" is the exact wording used by the authors of the study, not those chosen arbitrarily by an editor or editors here. Also, the study didn't use an example of "one person asking the other how they are" - that sort of exchange was classified as "Conversational". The example used in the study to represent 'pointless babble' was "I am eating a sandwich now." Furthermore, the small talk article does explain the function that this form of communication plays in inter-personal relationships. Keristrasza (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Pointless babble links to a page that explains the point of pointless babble. That's not confusing? If pointless babble is going to link anywhere, it should be to a page explaining it's a phrase employed by a writer to dismiss the legitimacy of certain communications.

I apologize for criticizing the article as the talk guidelines say I shouldn't do that, and I'm not saying this study shouldn't be referenced. It's valuable because it contributes to exposing the public perception of Twitter. The guidelines say the talk page is for "examining the reliability of references". This reference is flawed; it's a poorly conducted categorization. OhSqueezy (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fail whale image

How does the Fail whale constitute a logo? Using it here is called fair use because it is a low-res logo; the fail whale is not a logo. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.139.54 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a logo because Twitter is increasingly associated with technical outages. In contrast to other (far more popular) web services, Twitter fails all the time.

Business model

Well they announced that they were going to GET a business model that included some revenue back in April. It's been 6 months. Is anyone going to mention that? 206.196.158.130 (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)