<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Open Culture - Latest Comments in Harvard Studies Twitter</title><link>http://oculture.disqus.com/</link><description>None</description><atom:link href="https://oculture.disqus.com/harvard_studies_twitter/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:51:48 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Harvard Studies Twitter</title><link>http://www.openculture.com/2009/06/harvard_studies_twitter.html#comment-21003279</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi Dan,&lt;br&gt;Six months ago I was a Twitter skeptic and now I'm a Twitter evangelist.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;For people who are already spending a huge amount of time online (either for work or for personal reasons) and want to connect with other people with similar interests, I think Twitter is great. It's also an excellent way for companies to communicate and interact with their customers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But for anyone who doesn't fit into either one of those categories, Twitter is probably not right for them. If you don't have time to devote at least a couple hours a week to tweeting and interacting with other folks on Twitter, just stick to email.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eleena</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:51:48 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Harvard Studies Twitter</title><link>http://www.openculture.com/2009/06/harvard_studies_twitter.html#comment-21003278</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I may be missing the point with Twitter, but I am one of those who signed up and then left it alone really, since as far as I can tell, it is very similar to a 'facebook status' without any real reason to ever update it. I acknowledge that it may be more useful if a lot of your friends are on there (as is also the case with facebook), yet I still fail to really see the point. At least facebook has other points of interest (photographs, events etc) which twitter just doesn't have. Also, Twitter seems to almost demand a high level of activity from people in order to be useful, whereas sites like facebook are admittedly more static yet provide more reason to log in at any given point.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Just my off the cuff thoughts!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Chris&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Chris Allen</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:19:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Harvard Studies Twitter</title><link>http://www.openculture.com/2009/06/harvard_studies_twitter.html#comment-21003277</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm also a journalist. Tried Twitter several months ago and found it distracting, disjointed and not at all useful. Tried again a month or so ago (having read the kudos online regarding its usefulness for journalists) and had the same reaction. I prefer RSS for news.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Frederick</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 03:48:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Harvard Studies Twitter</title><link>http://www.openculture.com/2009/06/harvard_studies_twitter.html#comment-21003276</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm guessing that most people who sign up are the recent "I saw it on Oprah/CNN" crowd. As an avid "twitterer", I find it quiet useful in my work (I'm a journalist) and amongst my friends.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jaycer17</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:37:18 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>