Much excitement in the BBC news room as they announce that twitter is "40% babble". Babble being the technical term for 'tweets' that the 'researcher' didn't care for. All I can say is, so what?
So the research company has labelled 40% of what people say as "pointless babble". Alright, what percentage of what people say to each other face to face is "pointless babble"? More or less? Because if it's more (and it might be if we used the same guidelines) would that make Twitter more highbrow than everyday conversation?
Also I'm rather intrigued as to what criteria they used. At what point do we cross the line from chit chat to babble? In my case it's normally after the fifth sherry, but obviously everyone has a different tipping point.
"Almost as prevalent as the babble were "conversational" tweets that used it as a surrogate instant messaging system. The study found that only 8.7% of messages could be said to have "value" as they passed along news of interest."So conversation is not of "value" and linking to something is automatically worthwhile? Are we sure about this?
Yet more bullshit social media bashing by people who don't understand it's just people talking to each other using a new means. That new means has its own unique contours, strengths and weaknesses. You don't have to like it and I certainly don't think we should buy the hype that the revolution will be twitterised, or that now is the age of the Twitter Tsar but we shouldn't just go along with stories who discard sites like twitter because people use them to talk to each other, which is what they were designed for.
Surely the point is that if people find it has value for them they will use it, if not they will go elsewhere. Telling people that their conversation bores you isn't research and it doesn't tell us anything of value. If you've monitored our conversations and found them inadequate it's time for you to get a new hobby, not us.