Comments on: Conversationlists: Some Object, Strongly.

By: whitneymcn

whitneymcn — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:15:27 +0000

I think that's actually a fair piece of what bugs me: people don't add
me to lists for *my* benefit, they add me to lists because they feel
that doing so is helpful either to them personally (a filtered view of
Twitter) or to the broader universe of Twitter users (a guide to
interesting people others might not know about).

That I can see what lists I appear on in interesting, but feels far
from the point to me.

(And many thanks for the typo note: embarrassing, will fix.)

By: whitneymcn

whitneymcn — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:09:44 +0000

Thanks — I basically view it the same way: they're lists that provide
insight about the creator (and possibly *to* the creator) more than
anything else. The other nice thing is that The Tweet doesn't appear
to have had any impact on people signing up.

By: e.p.c.

e.p.c. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:46:30 +0000

Scoble is an edge case of an edge case way off to one side of the distribution of users. I can see his point partially: he looks at what lists he’s listed in and sees (from his perspective) entry after entry of "conversationlist" with no other context.

Wonder if his opinion would change if the lists were created private?

Also: minor typo on the conversationlist.com homepage: c/udpate/update/ in the first graph.

By: gbattle

gbattle — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:19:17 +0000

Robert et. al. are drinking the Haterade Whitney.

Twitter Lists are tools for the creator first, other people second. The idea that the name {{gasp}} doesn't give enough valuable metadata to others about the list members is complete BS. If anything, conversationlist says more about the list OWNER than almost any other listing convention I've seen.

Dynamic (sign up and go), easily explained, consistent naming across users, I think it's just fine. It's a summary page for those I am most actively engaged with through the medium. Simple and transparent.