links for 2011-03-29

Kevin makes the point that journalists always want to seem to "fix them" rather than "engage with them" or "lead them in conversation"

Why oh why oh why do they never seem to get a web person who isn't in marketing to look at these sites first?

"So why did I and others go to the show and tell? Are we just bonkers? No not really. These are great events that leave me in awe of the cleverness of developers; their inventiveness; knowledge of emerging technologies etc. They are also often very funny, fast paced and mind boggling."

The article reports a study which claims that "50% of all content consumed on Twitter is generated by only 20,000 users", but I agree with a lot of people in the comments here. The study only looks at tweets with links in, which are surely de facto most likely to be "broadcast" than conversation? And is a link really a measure of "conversation"?

Has to be a wind-up? Author gets bad review, then starts attacking the reviewer in the comments, and posting up 4 star reviews from Amazon to "prove" her book is good. My favourite bit from the thread: "The best part is that even your comments, Jacqueline [the author], are full of misspellings, awkward phrasing, grammatical errors, and typos. So I'm certain those creep into your writing."

It looks like we'll be passing the UK version of HuffPo somewhere in the mid-Atlantic