I got twitter last January because quasi-con had a hashtag and I wanted to be able to participate in that part of the event. That sort of tweeting was very simple. You just said you just saw, what you just heard, what you wanted to hear. Everyone was at the event and also tweeting. The tweets become a really great deliverable from the event and I even used them to make storify about the event.
This type of tweeting was very different. People posted articles with complex ideas in them. I wanted to respond fully to them, but the 140 character limit really dragged me down. For instance, Ryan posted a link to an article looking at privatization of libraries. At ALA Annual last year, I had the opportunity to have lunch with an LSSI librarian. The librarian has been in the field for 20 years, had been laid off and had gotten another job as an LSSI librarian. All her ALA friends treated her like she had contracted some fatal disease, but she didn’t see any different between what she had done previously and what did now. And I had to agree the job was similar, but I had to disagree about what the job meant.
That sort of ambivalent, complicated interaction doesn’t lend itself well to twitter. I could just tweet back to Ryan that I didn’t agree, but it was more than that. I believed in someway the article was true, in other ways not.
In terms of other struggles I had with twitter, I found it very hard to find “my library people” on twitter, meaning Business Librarians. I tried following several Business Librarians I know, but even then it was hard to know which academic librarians were actual business librarians. I found the twitter search interface to be very not useful for any type of searching, but I also acknowledge that those librarians might not be there. I know from experience that Business Librarians as a group have a much larger presence on LinkedIn (it is the business facebook after all) so perhaps I may find more people to follow if I had used that interface.