lukestein’s avatarlukestein’s Twitter Archive—№ 12,828

                  1. This👇 (h/t @ben_golub) is an interesting discussion, but also helped me crystallize a thought I’ve had about something that can make Twitter good or great (but sometimes terrible): tweets have a network structure. There are two main kinds of directed links between tweets:… 1/7 @poverty_action/1448726693225578503
                    Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo lukestein’s avatar ♻️ 2 Retweets ❤️ 3 Favorites Mood +5 🙂
                1. …in reply to @lukestein
                  (1) replies and (2) QTs. (Ignores eg screenshots, non-quote linking, and tacit reference/subtweeting). A tweet can use both. You only get two outbound links… use them! More quotes in your replies, please! I think a big part of what makes Twitter fun and useful is the…
                  Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo lukestein’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood +7 🙂
              1. …in reply to @lukestein
                conversational nature. I bet—w. no evidence—a denser network makes for a richer conversation. (“Richer” intentionally undefined.) I often try to QT old tweets—from me or others—into new threads or replies. Connect the past to the present! @lukestein/1241764538006900736
                Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo lukestein’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 2 Favorites Mood -1 🙁
            1. …in reply to @lukestein
              Of course, there’s also the “people” network evolving endogenously alongside the tweet network. Narrowly, this might reflect who follows whom. @nberpubs/1384197603110408192 A more expansive view might ask who “knows” whom (on here; irl), who “reads” whom, who “addresses” whom.
              Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo lukestein’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets Mood 0
          1. …in reply to @lukestein
            When you tag people, you bring them into the conversation. You invite replies and help people in the conversation find them. (There are risks too. Pile-ons are dangerous) I think this is one reason I’m bummed when academic Twitter doesn’t tag authors. @lukestein/1333074589019230210
            Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo lukestein’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 2 Favorites Mood -1 🙁
        1. …in reply to @lukestein
          So re first QT in this thread: an interesting conversation about underlying research by @orianabandiera & @maitreesh, but also the role funders and “users” of rsearch play (Ideally, @emollick or @mulagostarr or @poverty_action might have tagged an author) @xjaravel/1448252715277111297
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo lukestein’s avatar ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood +2 🙂
      1. …in reply to @lukestein
        And if you do little things like tag authors, or QT the @nberpubs tweet announcing the WP, or otherwise help density the tweet network, you can make this optional site better for everyone.* —FIN—
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo lukestein’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood +6 🙂
    1. …in reply to @lukestein
      *Including—and maybe especially—attention-seeking, self-promoting YOU. Conjecture: tweet network densifiers become more central in the people network, ceteris paribus.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo lukestein’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood 0
  1. …in reply to @lukestein
    A critical (in both senses), correct reply here: @paulgp/1449008841660698624
    On twitter.com Twitter logo lukestein’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets Mood 0