Talk:Microblogging

message: Is Folkstr notable enough for its own article?, i ask here before i write a article about the application!
Fotballman 20:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find anything inherently notable about it, so at this point I'd say no —αlεx•mullεr 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Folkstr notable enough for its own article? 

message: Don't know if we will ever develop a historical/predecessors section, but at the W3C before 2002 I was blogging many small items a day, characterized by keyword and available to colleagues via RSS. I called it "Busysponge" --Reagle (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be interesting to know when the first microblog actually took place. I've been providing 'soundbites' of my blog posts since 27 April 2002, which look much like my microblogs on Twitter today. The one on that date in particular was 134 characters long --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and early example 

message: Come on you lazy bastards! Let's get the Criticisms section rolling!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.46.99 (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: The closure of Pownce hasn't been mentionned yet...
~~jansegers 
Pieter Jansegers  
http://microblogs.ning.com
----
^^^
What's the point in having a seperate phrase, who ever created this phrase is splitting hairs for the sake of saying "I invented a unique phrase". What's wrong with "Status updates"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.198.172 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTA BENE 

message: Shouldn't this be "Microblogging"?  The hyphenated version sounds nearly as Zweibelesque as "news-paper" . Jpatokal (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Microblogging? 

message: That entire paragraph needs to be cited or scrapped. It doesn't read well.
24.187.110.140 (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reads a bit like original research to me.
David Delony (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Issues with Microblogging Section" 

message: I don’t see the point of the link “The pbj.ca distributed instance of the laconica Microblogging Open Source Software Project uses nginx for scale and speed”. Please elaborate or possibly remove. --Nomeata (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  pbj.ca-link? 

message: The lead paragraph states that the content of micro-blogging messages is smaller in "actual size."  What the heck does that mean?  Actually what?  It's totally confusing and meaningless.Trashbird1240 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual size? 

message: The section Microblogging for
organizational usage is lead by a ridiculous set of sentences that
reinforces the false dichotomy between free software and "commercial
software," implying that free software can't be commercialized.  The
section should either discuss the dichotomy as between free (as in
freedom) and proprietary microblogging platforms, or between commercially hosted
and self-hosted platforms.Trashbird1240 (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  False dichotomy of free versus commercial software 

message: Article says:  "A microblog differs from a traditional blog........."
At the risk of sounding ancient, I'm going to ask, have blogs been around long enough that it makes sense to talk about "traditional" blogs?
CBHA (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional? 

message: reading through this "microblogging" article, it appears to be just a variation on a blog.  what makes it worthy of a standalone article and not merely a section of blog?  i'm still clueless on its uniqueness.  (also why is this entitled "microblogging" (vs. "microblog" like the parent blog)?)--96.232.126.111 (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: what is difference between "microblog" and "[[blog]]"?

message: Can't the following be re-written? It sounds like something a public relations rep would write:  
Microblogging services have revolutionized the way information is consumed. It has empowered citizens themselves to act as sensors or sources of data which could lead to important pieces of information. People now share what they observe in their surroundings, information about events, and what their opinions are about certain topics, for example government policies in healthcare. Moreover, these services store various metadata from these posts, such as the location and time of these shared posts. Aggregate analysis [11] of this data includes different dimensions like space, time, theme, sentiment, network structure etc., and gives us an exciting opportunity to understand social perceptions of the people about certain events of interest, for tapping the pulse of the populace, or a platform for situational awareness and, as correctly pointed out above- a perfect medium of communication during crisis management.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.60.4 (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds like PR copy 

message: Regarding . Per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)" I'd like to introduce list-defined references to this article, to make it more friendly to edit (less code -> closer to WYSWIWYG). Per the request of editor who reverted me and WP:CITEVAR recommendation I'd like to ask editors interested in this article for input which style they prefer, and strongly suggest following the "avoid clutter" recommendation. While LDR add a little code to the total size of the article, it amounts to only 10% or so of the total article size, so load time should not be significantly affected (nobody should notice a 10% change; also, section edit load time will shorter anyway...), and editing experience should become much friendlier. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: reducing clutter through list-defined references 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Microblogging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140810121742/http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp= to http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5928662&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5928662
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091119203417/http://www.socialtext.com:80/customers/casestudy_fona.php to http://www.socialtext.com/customers/casestudy_fona.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is some discussion on this in the Article on Gab. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)Tym Whittier (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the Difference Between a "Microblog" and a "Social Media Platform"? 

message: Wasn't Google Buzz closed down years ago? 100.7.30.53 (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Buzz