Comments on: Twitter Looking Internally to Add Groups Functionality? http://staynalive.com/articles/2008/03/06/twitter-looking-internally-to-add-groups-functionality/ Social Media, Tech, and Rants From Jesse Stay, The "Social" Geek Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:16:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Brett Kelly http://staynalive.com/articles/2008/03/06/twitter-looking-internally-to-add-groups-functionality/#comment-809 Brett Kelly Thu, 06 Mar 2008 06:55:38 +0000 http://staynalive.com/articles/2008/03/06/twitter-looking-internally-to-add-groups-functionality/#comment-809 Personally, I think that they'll probably see which of the third-party implementations they like and use it as inspiration (should the actually move forward with it). That said, their "radar" should pretty much just be "make the service reliable". One could also make a compelling argument for not complicating a service that (aside from outages and other technical snafu's) has really done well *because it's so simple*. For that reason, I think adding groups would probably be a mistake. Interesting to know that they're thinking about it, though. Great post, cheers! Personally, I think that they’ll probably see which of the third-party implementations they like and use it as inspiration (should the actually move forward with it). That said, their “radar” should pretty much just be “make the service reliable”.

One could also make a compelling argument for not complicating a service that (aside from outages and other technical snafu’s) has really done well *because it’s so simple*. For that reason, I think adding groups would probably be a mistake.

Interesting to know that they’re thinking about it, though.

Great post, cheers!

]]> By: Brett Kelly http://staynalive.com/articles/2008/03/06/twitter-looking-internally-to-add-groups-functionality/#comment-10141 Brett Kelly Thu, 06 Mar 2008 06:55:38 +0000 http://staynalive.com/articles/2008/03/06/twitter-looking-internally-to-add-groups-functionality/#comment-10141 Personally, I think that they'll probably see which of the third-party implementations they like and use it as inspiration (should the actually move forward with it). That said, their "radar" should pretty much just be "make the service reliable". <br><br>One could also make a compelling argument for not complicating a service that (aside from outages and other technical snafu's) has really done well *because it's so simple*. For that reason, I think adding groups would probably be a mistake.<br><br>Interesting to know that they're thinking about it, though.<br><br>Great post, cheers! Personally, I think that they'll probably see which of the third-party implementations they like and use it as inspiration (should the actually move forward with it). That said, their “radar” should pretty much just be “make the service reliable”.

One could also make a compelling argument for not complicating a service that (aside from outages and other technical snafu's) has really done well *because it's so simple*. For that reason, I think adding groups would probably be a mistake.

Interesting to know that they're thinking about it, though.

Great post, cheers!

]]>