Twitter finally updates character count when shortening links

One of the biggest pains for me in Twitter is typing out a message, then inserting a link, and being told it is now way over the 140 character limit. This always seemed idiotic, since Twitter and I both know they will shorten my link once I move to publish it.

In Blackjack, when you’re holding an ace and you get hit a card that would normally make you bust, the value of the ace goes from 11 to 1. Why can’t Twitter employ that kind of logic?

Well, apparently now they do. Here’s a tweet I wrote:

Twitter Links 1

As you can see, I should only be able to fit another 26 characters into this tweet. Before, if I put in a particularly long URL, it would refuse to let me publish.

Twitter links 2

Now, when I pop in a particularly long URL, (79 characters to be exact, or 53 characters longer than it should allow) Twitter determins the character length of what it is going to shorten my link down to, and that’s reflected in the character count.

Thanks for getting around to this, Twitter!

I hit the 10,000 Twitter Follower Mark Today!

Since it’s a Friday and hardly anyone reads blog posts between Thursday and Sunday anymore, I don’t mind putting out a horribly self-promotional post: Today I finally got 10,000 Twitter followers.

10000 Twitter followers

Maybe that’s an achievement, but I’ll let you in on a secret: I only did it to show how easy it is to do.

See, when people hire me to do social media marketing for them, they always talk about how they want a “lot of followers.” It’s the one metric that seems to make sense to everyone. “If I have a lot of followers by the end of this, then things must have worked out. I now have a larger audience, so I’m pretty sure to make some money out of all of this!”

But as I’ve said for years and years, a follower count isn’t any measure of success. When I can get 10,000 followers just by being dopey – about 7000 of those followers only happening in the last six months, when I decided to do this experiment – it isn’t an accomplishment worth much. I certainly don’t feel like there are 10,000 individuals “listening to me,” when I know a number of them are bots, or feeds, or companies that don’t read their followers.

There are a lot of really cool people I have met as a result of Twitter, but I certainly don’t feel like selling any SEO consulting work to them. I’d much rather discuss Dadaism. (If you were in on that yesterday – how fun was that? I’ll have to post about all that next week.)

Bottom line: The number of followers you get still isn’t a measure of success, it’s just an ego boost if you have a fragile, fragile ego. If you’re someone like me who is brimming with confidence and power, however… it’s no where near as good as, you know – actually brimming with confidence and power.

I so recommend that over just having a lot of Twitter followers.

Why I don’t love the Cloud

There’s a lot of talk about Cloud Computing lately. There’s been a lot for the past couple of years, but with Apple’s announcement of the iCloud, everyone’s doing the talking.

iCloud Media Cloud

This is also something Google has gotten into, with their Google Music and to an extent Google Docs. So this isn’t just a slam against Apple, they’ve just gotten all of the press lately.

Like most good ideas, iCloud is a simple one: Since there are so many devices you may have – an iPod, an iPhone, an iPad, and/or an Apple computer, iCloud would be the place where all of your files and contacts live, so all of your devices can be synced up easily. Rather than living on your base computer’s hard drive, and updating everything one by one, the Cloud will simply do it for you. What’s more, your files would be accessed wirelessly and not have to live on an old fashioned, poopy hard drive.

So where do I begin with my complaints on this? All of them stem from two things that drive me crazy with modern technology: The over-large corporation that tells its users this is a good idea, and the mass of users who go along with the hype.

First off, storing all of my files on an Apple server means I no longer have my own files. There is a flimsy contract between the provider and myself that my files will be secure and always waiting for me. What happens when they aren’t though? If I am a salesman, and I lose all my contacts through a snafu with their cloud, how will I be compensated for all the lost sales that would result?

Then there’s the purely selfish reason: I have a LOT of illegally burned content. Not necessarily stolen, but I do burn my own copies of CDs and DVDs – if you’ve been online for at least a few years, you do too. What’s to say the owner of the cloud service doesn’t bow down to the RIAA or Paramount or Universal, and let them look over my collection to see if there’s anything lawsuit-worthy?

Finally, assuming there aren’t any technical or draconian legal issues, there’s still the problem of bandwidth. Loading all of your music onto the iCloud and syncing it with your iPad on the go is great – until everyone else does it too. I actually like the idea of cloud computing to store some files. But what happens when everyone’s device relies on a mobile data plan to get its music?

What happens is everything will get slower.

It is possible to get enough servers and towers to make this work. That will be incredibly expensive, of course, and that cost will be passed onto the consumer – namely, you. And me, in fact, whether I use it or not. It wouldn’t surprise me if in a year or two Android or iPhone data plans drive the monthly cost up to $200 per month.

The current cost is already too high for something as simple as a phone in my opinion. All the market needs to do is tell companies they’re willing to spend twice as much on their service just to avoid manually syncing devices. Then they can charge almost as much as they want to.

All just so Apple can stop putting hard drives in iPods, and sell you more crap exclusively on iTunes? It sounds like we’re all lining up for a major screwing.

Service Code: Netflix’s other neat idea

We all know what Netflix is by now, so I won’t bother starting with that. Movies, ques, blah blah blah.

But I found something new about their site last night that is such a brilliant idea, I’m surprised other websites with a lot of Customer Service call volume haven’t adopted it: Online Service Codes.

Here’s how it works – you have  a problem with Netflix for whatever reason. You’re logged into their site, and you click the “contact us” link on their page. What you get is something that looks like this:

Netflix knows most people come to the “contact us” page because they have a problem. A lot of companies hide their customer service phone number on their site because they don’t want to hear from customers with a problem. Netflix seems to understand they need to be available to their customers if they want to keep them.

So they have a link to their customer service phone number plainly visible on the contact page. (Beneath the two other links for most common problems of course – still need to try to keep the call volume down!) But when you click on the CS number, you also get a wait time for your call, so you can try again later if it’s bad, and a service code.

This service code is what really has me jazzed. When you call in, rather than go through the standard giving of name, customer ID, address, phone number, secret question… you simply give this number while on hold, waiting for the operator. Since you can only get this code while logged in, the system generates a code that verifies you, and gets the operator into your account.

Simple! So why isn’t everyone using this? Why am I still trying to remember the Arizona state bird or my first girlfriend’s last name whenever I have password trouble with Bank of America?

Looking around, I see other write ups on Netflix’ service code dating back two years, so it isn’t exactly new technology – but it does seem to still be relegated only to Netflix. If anyone else is using it, either they aren’t big enough to notice or they aren’t bragging about it.

Still, it’s damn smart and I wish all companies with call centers were using it.

Schema.org – A new, bright way of informing search engines

Exciting news this week for SEO junkies: Google, Bing and Yahoo are all backing a new standard for web page meta data, schema.org. More than simply adding keywords into the existing title, meta keywords and meta description, this new markup gives the tags you used a context that helps search engines find results.

For example, if you wanted to rank for “golf bags in Arizona,” you might include that phrase in the meta keywords, the page title, and in a sentence or two in the description.

With this, however, you can include information that helps search engines understand why ranking your page for “golf bags in Arizona” makes sense.

Also, the placement of these tags inform the search engines where this relevant information can be found.

<div itemscope itemtype =”http://schema.org/LocalBusiness”>

This tag informs the search spider what kind of tab is being employed. Schema.org has several different definitions you can use, depending on the information you’re trying to call out.

Then you add similarly focused tags to call out the information that shows this as a “local business,” which you told them was coming in the line above:

<h1 itemprop=”name”>Sam’s Golf Shop</h1><span> itemprop=”streetAddress”>1212 W. Dobson</span>
<span itemprop=”addressLocality”>Tempe</span>
<span itemprop=”addressRegion”>AZ</span>
<span itemprop=”postalCode”>85284</span>
</div>

In a way, this is a step back for search engines. For years they have endeavored to create algorithms that could read the page, and make decisions themselves about what a page was, and what it meant. Since these programs cannot actually read and understand a page yet, they call on the webmaster to include context that makes the tags make sense.

Because of that, I have no doubt these tags can and will be abused by smart-yet-nefarious SEOs.

However, this now also gives all of the good SEOs a way to qualify those tags. That way, we can both start getting better search results.

DM Whacker – A Tool for Deleting all of your Twitter Direct Messages

I get way too many direct messages on Twitter – and there’s few of them I actually read. I’ve posted in the past about the annoyance of Twitter auto-responder messages. For some reason, people still feel the need to auto reply to anyone who follows them with something like:

“Thanks for the follow! Now read my blog!”

As if we followed this person for the sole purpose of helping them increase the number of views of their site. I’m surprised I haven’t heard someone go that step further and ask me to click on an ad because, “I have car payments, dick!”

I’ve found a great solution for this though: DM Whacker is a great way to delete ALL of your instant messages. Now keep reading, there are some instructions.

1) Go here to get the DM Whacker bookmarklet. Drag it into your browser’s toolbar.

2) Go to Twitter and sign in. While this tool really does work, it was made before Twitter’s layout update – so you’ll want to switch back to the old layout.

3) Once you’ve done that, click on the link in your toolbar. It will likely ask you if it can go to your messages. Click that “ok” button.

If you look on your right rail, you’ll see this:

The fields are pretty self-explanatory. You can either delete all of your DMs, or you can just delete DMs from a specific user. If you’ve got an active Twitter stalker, the latter is for you. But I get hit-and-run DMs from all of those dummies who read some blog post telling them to DM anyone who followed them. So I select “all dm’s.”

And a quick aside to the developer – it’s “all dms,” not “all dm’s.” That apostrophe is only necessary if you’re going on to say, “all dm’s on your profile are trash and need to be destroyed.” “All dms,” however, means all of your direct messages.

Anyway, if you also want to delete all of the DMs you’ve sent, check that box too. If you have a TrueTwit account, you’ve likely got hundreds of those. Also, shame on you for making people verify themselves. There aren’t THAT many Twitter bots out there you should be allowed to pester people who’ve been kind enough to show interest in you. I had to set up an account with them just to get all these messages to stop. Hypocritical? You betcha. Still, when TrueTwit wins, everybody looses.

Anyway again, you can also delete DMs with specific keywords in it, like, say, “TrueTwit validation service. To validate click here.” Then it will only kill those specific messages.

It would be nice if you could tell the app to delete all messages except those from specific users, but how badly do you really need your favorite DMs? If the person who wrote you was really that heartfelt, they’d have sent you a real letter. Or at least posted it to your Facebook Wall.

Because really, while DMs are supposed to be an easy way to get a quick, private message off to one of your followers, it’s been perverted by too many. Twitter isn’t going to do anything about it, so you may as well.

10 ways to be more interesting on Twitter

This is a video we produced for work – but these tips work for everyone.

If you’ve been on Twitter for even a little while, none of these tips are really all that ground breaking. The one I think is most important, though, is not being scared.

When people can’t get it together to write 140 characters or less, it’s usually because they’re afraid of making asses of themselves. Usually they either don’t want to get in trouble, or look stupid, or worst of all have someone tell them they’re wrong.

I have to ask: Does that describe you? Do you have trouble posting anything on line, that anyone can read, because you’re afraid of criticism?