Keep up Nature…Cell Press have had a Youtube channel for a while now, and now I notice they’ll even tweet breakthrough science to you!
I’m sure these were suggestions I put in my application a couple of years ago y’know…
Does anyone make use of these? Are they confined to the younger set, or do have Professors and senior academicians tweeting away about fatty acid synthesis?
‘No’.
splort
Uhm, Nature has a YouTube channel too, and a bunch of Twitter accounts.
(And they have more YouTube subscribers than Cell!)
Arsebiscuits.
What the hell. Who needs research when you get the first headline, eh?
More tea?
And Nature has better bloggers.
Damn tootin’
“More tea?”
Thanks. Just black, please.
Careful, Eva
Is Elsevier teh WIN
Is that Dutch or what?
Not Dutch
I also vote ‘no’. And I vote for not being anywhere near Henry when he’s tootin’.
[sorry, 8- and 6-year-olds at home, bathroom humour is inevitable]
I prefer Nature to Elsevier anyway. At least Nature don’t conceal their arms dealing and plans for world domination
bang! ;-)
What exactly are people saying “no” to? I think the videos on YouTube are seen by people who don’t normally read science journals. It’s a different audience. Twitter I’m not sure about – I think everyone is still experimenting there.
Nature Chemistry has used Twitter to good effect. At the ACS conf recently, special competitions ran for those on twitter. http://twitter.com/NatureChemistry
I’m the face behind the F1000 tweets. We haven’t advertised it, but we’ve got quite a following. As you say, Eva, it’s an experiment.
I should say that I’ve recently said some not so positive things about the use of Twitter (and other things) for science communication, and it’s all written up and will be in print and also on my blog. Soon.
I must admit, I don’t tweet. I can’t see the point, personally.
I’m with Ian, doubtless-excellent F1000 Twittishness notwithstanding. Honestly, how would I Twitter and find time to spend hours to spend on Flickr?
or grammaticalness, neverthelessly
There is no real point to it. I can see how it’s fun when you connect with a group of friends that way (and that’s probably the idea behind it – and I have used it to make quick last-minute plans with people) but when you’re following 20 friends, 30 science bloggers, 15 companies, 10 interesting strangers, and 5 celebrities (my personal estimate) then whatever you say is never interesting to all of those people. And it’s so fleeting. Quote from piece I just submitted: “Twitter is like standing in a crowded room: You might pick up on an interesting conversation, but you have to go in there knowing that you won’t be able to follow what everyone is saying.”
I felt the same when I wandered over to FriendFeed. Did a sharp “about turn” and didn’t go back.
I dunno…I don’t care/give a damn enough to know what anyone is thinking at any given time constantly. And I can think of few situations where I would need such up-to-the-minute minutiae. And if i have something to say/shae, then I blog it or call or something…140 characters is too constraining (i’m too verbose)
In the Times today (Saturday print magazine section, not published online ;-) ) it said that Twitter is for the bored and the insecure. (Just one perspective!)
I have got a “parked” Twitter account and keep accumulating followers at the rate of several a day – most recently a gas company and Sigma-Aldrich. I wonder what they think they’ll gain by following me?
Maxine…the new e-Messiah!
Ha ha! Now you’ve given me the idea, I will start a bit of brain-washing. [Goes off to tweet that she is trapped in a lift.]
highly amusing
Tweet? Bang? Tootin’?
You kept my bagpipes!
Tweet? Bang? Tootin’?
You kept my bagpipes!
Somebody give Henry back his bagpipes, please.
Ian: I suspect that at least 23% of UK Twitter traffic is comprised of variation on the phrase does anyone know if this bus goes to the station?