Comments on: Woofers and Tweeters http://www.sciencetext.com/woofer-and-twitter.html Sciencetext Tech Talk, PC tips, blog hacks, browsing, blogging, social media Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:01:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David Bradley http://www.sciencetext.com/woofer-and-twitter.html/comment-page-1#comment-168914 David Bradley Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:14:31 +0000 http://www.sciencetext.com/?p=2690#comment-168914 @Pooj I think Woofer and their concept of macro-blogging are just a tongue-in-cheek twist on twitter. I doubt anyone will take it seriously to be honest, there are so many other places where one can ramble on at any length without being forced to fill up 1400 characters ;-) @Pooj I think Woofer and their concept of macro-blogging are just a tongue-in-cheek twist on twitter. I doubt anyone will take it seriously to be honest, there are so many other places where one can ramble on at any length without being forced to fill up 1400 characters ;-)

]]> By: Pooj http://www.sciencetext.com/woofer-and-twitter.html/comment-page-1#comment-168913 Pooj Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:17:07 +0000 http://www.sciencetext.com/?p=2690#comment-168913 I just found out about Woofer. I found something very interesting; most "woofers" did not have more 1 or 2 woofs and all of those same people as "twitterers" had more than 50 tweets! So I think people have a lot to say in 140 and not as much in 1400. :) I just found out about Woofer. I found something very interesting; most “woofers” did not have more 1 or 2 woofs and all of those same people as “twitterers” had more than 50 tweets! So I think people have a lot to say in 140 and not as much in 1400. :)

]]> By: David Bradley http://www.sciencetext.com/woofer-and-twitter.html/comment-page-1#comment-168912 David Bradley Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:53:45 +0000 http://www.sciencetext.com/?p=2690#comment-168912 Hat tip to <a href="http://twitter.com/libram" rel="nofollow">@libram</a> for bringing Woofer to my attention. The original post without html markup is precisely 1400 characters...and yes, the ending is deliberately truncated... Hat tip to @libram for bringing Woofer to my attention.

The original post without html markup is precisely 1400 characters…and yes, the ending is deliberately truncated…

]]>