As some of my readers will know, I have a bit of an issue with lengthy Twitter conversations between users.  Anything over three replies between two people is just showing that the users don't understand the medium, in my eyes.  Small converstaions of one or two replies are absolutely fine, and often very interesting, but if two people alone find they're "chatting" on an open channel, it's just yawnsome.

Also Tweet frequency; if someone is posting more than say five an hour (I don't really have an exact figure, it's what feels right or more importantly, wrong) then I get irritated by their dominance on my Twitter feed and tend to un-follow them.  To give you an idea, I've unfollowed at least five people I can think of who at one point or other were posting up to 20 Tweets an hour.  That's just a flagrant disregard for their followers time and social space online, I'd say.

And finally, this is also true of anyone who *only* uses Twitter as a chat program, ie all their Twitters are @someone.  It's just boring, I'm interested in what people are up to, and the occassional questions, comments and thoughts that pop up.

I'm aware that I'm quite militant about my views on Twitter, in the same way that I will only connect on LinkedIn with people I have actually worked with and would recommend, and the way I culled my Facebook "friends" that weren't friends.  But I've found that the value of my social network  for me is all about the quality, not the quantity.  I predict this will also start to become a more widespread view as people's networks grow and grow through evolving social media.

All my views aside though, this post, "Thinking about capillary conversations and choice" is a brilliant beginners through to advanced users guide on how to microblog, it is based on Twitter but I would suggest it is well worth rolling out across all microblogging platforms.