Today Jeremiah Owyang at Forrester threw down the gauntlet and dared people to be his friends on Twitter. Soon he was racking up the friends on each screen refresh you can see his progress.
His blog post gathered hundreds of comments which translated into about 100 new friends on Twitter.
Chris Webb talks about this, expanding on David Armano's assertion that Twitter is a conversation ecosystem. Yes, an ecosystem can get mired down by ambient pollution - in this case "throwaway" tweets. But he links to things like Tweet Scan to filter for you:
This is all true, to an extent. I was an original Twitter detractor that now uses it rather extensively.
There are a few things about the "noise" on Twitter that have become clearer to me.
Number 1 - Noise = People. People are social animals. I love that I can crowdsource with Twitter, but you won't have a crowd if you are a free rider. Joining in on the daily conversation and interaction on Twitter is important. You have to be known to the group. That's just how social circles work. So the "what you have for lunch" tweet which people use to devalue Twitter is actually why it works.
Number 2 - Your Network Requires Familiarity. Part of any real social network is that you have some things to bond on. The twitter exchange below is me throwing out a fairly arbitrary public whine about Pogo, a comic strip long lost in the annals of popular culture, and receiving back social value from Brian Kerr - a guy I've never actually shaken hands with.
The noise we seek to filter is where the value actually lies.
Is Twitter a conversation ecosystem? Yeah, probably. Is a bar or a prison a conversation ecosystem. Yes.
Being a conversation ecosystem is nothing special. Understanding that the muck on the bottom feeds the 
fish - that's where we get into some real issues.
In actual ecology, things are messy. Mud and feces are the building blocks of life. Our throw away posts are what gives life to the conversation.
Jeremiah tossed out a post that will expand his ecosystem today. Will he get a lot of polluting posts, a lot of trash tweets? Oh yes. Will he 
get more benefit from the Twitter party-line of communication? Absolutely.
Indeed, in twitter, the mayhem is the message.
UPDATE: Here is some proof of the power of Jeremiah's twitter feed, which is up 5% on the day:
Other than equating Twitter "noise" with "muck and feces", I thought this was a great post!
I was one of those who joined Jeremiah's Twitter followers today as a result of his post.
http://twitter.com/thumbarger
Posted by: Tom Humbarger | 11 December 2007 at 17:49
I have shaken Brian Kerr's hand, so we have a transitive handshake going.
Twitter is awesome for figuring out who is bored enough to take a phone call RIGHT NOW because obviously they are interruptable enough to talk to if they are twittering.
Posted by: Edward Vielmetti | 11 December 2007 at 17:50
I'm so fascinated by all the posts on various blogs talking about the 'noise' or 'muck' or whatever on twitter. I like this post because you hit the nail on the head about what makes twitter such a valuable resource. Interesting-ness, and usefulness, is so subjective! the expression 'one man's trash is another man's treasure' is apt for twitter because a conversation that might be useful for me and my business may not be useful for you and yours. But it's great to have the choice!
Posted by: Trula | 11 December 2007 at 17:57
Tom .. if you are a fish or a plant, muck and feces are where it's at baby! One man's tweet is another fish's muck.
Ed .. I think you are right. However, one thing I like about Twitter is, even when doing something else, I can do a quick update.
Posted by: Jim Benson | 11 December 2007 at 17:57
Trula .. heh, we crossed posts but seem to be in full agreement!
Posted by: Jim Benson | 11 December 2007 at 17:59
Jeremy's subscriber list grew 5%. I wonder whether he considers that the value of his network grew more or less than that number? I suspect more. However, there will be more gravel to sort while finding the gold.
I have experienced speaking with someone face to face only to learn later in the conversation that we had exchanged tweets for weeks. Kinda cool.
The point is you do need to use Twitter, round up some followers, start a conversation, before you can evaluate it or pass judgment.
Posted by: Jim Spencer | 11 December 2007 at 18:12
Jim .. it sometimes seems like people are expecting an instant conclusion to a conversation. They try a tool for a few minutes and, if not immediate results, then it is crap. This is understandable, people are filtering.
You are right, you have to participate in a conversation before you know if the tool is worthwhile. Conversations take time and are rather unique in twitter. What do you Direct Message? What do you provide to the group?
Posted by: Jim Benson | 11 December 2007 at 18:16
Great post...the chatter is the best part of twitter...
Posted by: John Furrier | 11 December 2007 at 19:18
John - Thanks! And good luck with the new blog(s)!
Posted by: Jim Benson | 11 December 2007 at 19:25
Jim,
I dm answers to specific questions so that they are retained past the public time line expiration and easily viewed on the Replies tab.
I don't have a theme for what I provide for the group, but hopefully it is a lot more valuable than what I ate.
You would be amused to read about my first engagements with Twitter on my blog, esp. this article which kind of starts it all http://www.jbspartners.com/blog/new-media/what-is-twitter
It has taken time, persuasion and experience to bring me around.
The biggest benefits of Twitter have been
1) Links to sites and blogs I value and would not have found myself
2) Reconnected with an old family friend
3) Made a bunch of new local friends that attend the Social Media events around Boston.
How has Twitter benefited you?
Posted by: Jim Spencer | 11 December 2007 at 20:00
oooh that's me on tweet scan. w00t! Go Silkcharm!
Twitter for me:
Broadcast testimonials about myself (I give an update e.g "gone to loo").
Broadcast discoverability and filtering of an external site (not myself) (example: hey guys go and see tinyurl.com etc).
Few to Few conversation - I message someone directly but publicly. They respond. (e.g. @silkcharm you are an idiot).
The discoverability of friends is a given in social networks no? As is private one to one messaging...
http://www.twitter.com/silkcharm
Posted by: Laurel Papworth | 11 December 2007 at 22:59
Jim,
Awesome post! Thanks for expanding this conversation, and for the hat tip.
Posted by: Chris Webb | 12 December 2007 at 23:07