The same goes for a long list of 20 tweets sent one after another at roughly the same time by the same person, even if they aren’t on the same topic. People, less = more. Twitter is a minimalist medium, so don’t try to paint big pictures on it.

ok, that’s my thought on this little twittequette! follow me! i’m EpicBear. yum.

1) Squidoo uses Google ads. Your first sentence implies that Squidoo ads and Google ads are independent.

2) Squidoo doesn’t “allow you to state that you donate % to charity”. It actually donates a % of money from its Google ad revenue, and IT states that it does so.

3) “Google does not” would have been fine, but for points 1 & 2 above, and assuming that readers would believe that it’s true, just ‘cos I say it is. I thought it better to actually quote Google. Admittedly, for meaning’s sake, this could have been omitted, but would it have been as effective? I don’t think so.

4) I wasn’t asking if Squidoo’s policy is good. I was asking if Google had changed its policy. Implicit in this was the question, “or is Squidoo breaking the rules?”

So as you can see, your 100 words, while significantly shorter, did not convey a clear meaning, nor a correct one. I agree that it’s important to be courteous of other people’s time and attention, but that also means phrasing questions such that they can be clearly understood, and don’t need clarification. On Twitter, if people don’t understand your meaning the first time, they usually won’t ask for clarification.

I would rather use a few more words and have people understand what I say (at the risk of losing a few followers), than use a few less and get no response at all ‘cos people have no idea what I mean (and probably lose followers anyway!).

“Squidoo ads allow you to state that you donate % to charity, Google does not.”

79 characters. What else you want to add?

” Is this good policy?”

21 more, total 100.

Be courteous of other people’s time and attention. Or lose them, deservedly.

Many people engage in Twitter on mobile devices where there is no access to “a more fitting medium”. What about those users who don’t even have a regular blog?

You’re creating an artificial boundary on the medium. Twitter isn’t a “site,” it is a stream of conversations. Sometimes, at a dinner party, it is quite alright to chain two or three sentences together when the conversation warrants. Someone who dominates every table and every issue will get uninvited to the party, and Twitter has a mechanism for that.

And while I find it distressing when folks un-follow me, I agree that it’s important to be true to yourself when engaging people. (Mind you, I’m a more politically correct version of myself when broadcasting twitter messages than when I’m communicating one-on-one with someone I know.)

Jill, thanks especially for your comment. For all that my mind tells me to tweet naturally, my heart doesn’t like irritating people, especially you!

For what it’s worth, I, too, aim to say it in 140 or less, wherever I can. Partly ‘cos that’s the Twitter format, and partly ‘cos it’s difficult for followers to string the tweets together otherwise.

It’s a tricky balance, isn’t it? Sometimes I’ll write a blog post and link to it in a tweet, and sometimes I’ll just tweet. On this particular occasion, I didn’t even think about a blog post. I saw the quote on Squidoo and just blurted it out on Twitter. I was actually hoping for some immediate feedback.

Anyway, thanks again!

Cheers everyone!