A Tweeting Taxonomy- Lifecasters The stereotypical ‘tweeter’: “here’s what I had for breakfast...” + keeps friends and family posted on what youre up to. - very few are likely to be interested in what youre up to. - wastes potential.
A Tweeting Taxonomy- Grazers Not looking for audience; consuming information from trusted sources. + Personalised news feed. + Other people do the work of ﬁnding interesting stuff. + Totally anonymous. - Ignores the "social" bit.
A Tweeting Taxonomy- Community builders Largely known audience, organising around a common interest. + Fosters links with like-minded people. + Good resource for solving problems, ﬁnding references, etc. + Limits potential for controversy. - Potentially limiting exposure/outreach - ‘cliquishness’.
A Tweeting Taxonomy- Promoters Advertising something that youre doing (book, course youre teaching, departmental research). + Low cost, high potential impact. + Network effects can broaden reach (if relevant). - Only effective if your audience is on the network. - Authenticity issues.
A Tweeting Taxonomy- Curators Actively seeking out interesting information to share with others. + Adding real value to community. + Can build wide audience as a trusted source. - Pressure to regularly ﬁnd and share content.
A Tweeting Taxonomy- Commentators Aim to drive discussions, change opinions. + High engagement and growth of audience. + People (media) may start seeking your opinion. - More likely to draw critical attention.
Reality - you can mix styles Grazing Curation Commentary