Comments on: Was your date fitter on Twitter?

By: Lauren Fisher

Lauren Fisher — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:35:17 +0000

Oh yeah, you’re right. Another insightful comment from you there Mark, as usual.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:07:23 +0000

What are ya talking about Lauren, it’s really easy to read sarcasm online. REALLY easy.

By: Lauren Fisher

Lauren Fisher — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:47:10 +0000

Interesting points – I always try and inject a bit of emotion into my tweets etc.. which I think is why I use smileys a little too much!
The subtleties of body language are incredibly important and while that’s something that you do lose online, I think we’re learning new ways of incorporating these into online conversations, just in different ways. It’s still near-impossible to read sarcasm though and unless I know someone particularly well, it’s hard to know how to respond sometimesl. You can’t quite tell if they’re making fun or not!

By: Lauren Fisher

Lauren Fisher — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:41:36 +0000

Haha, that’s a nice idea! Maybe a pub’s not the best setting for that approach though

By: Andrea

Andrea — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:19:27 +0000

No matter how much you might convince yourself otherwise, you can never really be the same online as off-line. When you’re inputting, the body language and facial expressions that can make such a difference to how you intend your message to be received are missing. That inevitably leads to misunderstandings.
Equally well, someone who’s incredibly witty on a blog may well be stuck for words in reality, without the time to think, consider and revise.
If an online relationship is going to translate successfully into an off line one, it needs time to develop and grow. The photo and the cv (resume) shouldn’t be the be-all and end-all.
Still, while we’re all wondering if the photo is real or not, here’s a very funny video of just how disappointing the reality vs the online profile can be…http://ow.ly/MGDz

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:46:05 +0000

Indeed, therein lies the problem – people aren’t smart enough to investigate these things; to realise that some of those photos really shouldn’t be there/publicly viewable and generally filter the information that is on the web about them.

When you begin using a new thing, whether it’s a website/social network, desktop application, or an offline device, all buttons should be pressed and pages viewed – just to find out what they all do. Most people don’t do this.

Teaching people about privacy online has been something many websites have done for years, and for anyone to miss something about Facebook’s privacy they have clearly been living under a rock, for want of a better phrase.

By: Lauren Fisher

Lauren Fisher — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:48:10 +0000

Well I guess that’s a good barometer to have! I don’t think there’s anything wrong in wanting to maintain some level of control over the information/photos that are about you online. The problem comes I think, when people aren’t fully aware of how much information could be available publicly. Thinking of the new Facebook privacy settings here…

By: The Real David Barrett

The Real David Barrett — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:58:13 +0000

You left out the NFL player and ESPN reporter currently on trial for being a peeping tom. Our name is a popular one.

By: Demure Lemur

Demure Lemur — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:02:10 +0000

While I’ve met lots of real life friends online, I’ve never met a real life lover. I do have a painfully shy, but wonderfully bright and funny friend who has never managed to do that well with the ladies. I often think he should bring his laptop to the pub, and when girls try to talk to him he should just show them some of his blog posts. They’d wet themselves laughing and take him home in a jiffy. Unfortunately, it just don’t work like that!

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:32:16 +0000

I too think that I remain the same, offline as online. As for my data online, it rarely happens, but I have untagged myself in the occasional facebook/flickr photograph. This is simply because I like to have as much control over the information that’s available about me, through not publishing anything I will stupid, and removing what I can.
Yes we could all be ‘private’ but I enjoy being open. The key is to behave in the way you would offline, and say/publish only what you would want your grandmother to see etc.
As for twitter dating… that is an interesting one.

By: Dave Cahill

Dave Cahill — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:51:02 +0000

Indeed, no doubt a shrink or sociologist would have some explanation for it, either way it’s one of a few aspects of folks’ interaction with technology that always puzzled me a bit. Think the BBC had a brief piece on that a while back in fact, can’t seem to find it though.

Personally, I find most of the folks who’s online doings I’d have particular respect for, tend to come across in a very similar manner “offline”. May be something in that.

Re the gloves, may have gone too subtle on that reference – in considering my response to the post, happened across a photo of girl standing on what appears to be bridge at night in Budapest a couple years back

By: Lauren Fisher

Lauren Fisher — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:39:25 +0000

Thanks for the comment Dave, really insightful. Your point about online vs offline life is interesting – it’s a post I’ve been thinking about writing for a while. Some of the behaviour you come across online you just wouldn’t encounter in ‘offline’ life. There shouldn’t be a difference, but there undoubtedly is. Not least the language that can be levelled at people who have never even met before. The ability to hide behind an identity has a big part to play there I think. The problems obviously come when, if you keep these 2 identities, you meet these online connections in offline situations. Like you said, there can be consequences.

I like to think that I keep the same identity online and offline – I don’t really see a need to be any other way. I know I’ve certainly met people that I’ve got to know through Twitter etc… and you couldn’t tell it’s the same person. An interesting look into the human psyche anyway and the differences in verbal and written communication.

On your last point, you’ve completely lost me on gloves with stars?!

By: Dave Cahill

Dave Cahill — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:49:40 +0000

Likewise, googling me may suggest that I’m a musician involved in “gypsy prog rock”, amongst other things. Come to think of it, chicks dig that sort of thing *turns down SEO knobs on real identity*

Seriously though, aside from privacy management for different groups, I think some of the potential problems come back to this weird idea a lot of folks seem to have, about online vs “real life”. Come across it a lot on forums – folks seem to think they can behave any way or say anything because “it’s not like it’s real life”. Maybe it’s because I build tech for a living and that removes a lot of the mystique, but I never understood that line of thinking – the internet isn’t magic, it’s just another communications medium. (That and being over-optimistic about the anonymity of the web) As your post amply demonstrates, treating your “online” and “offline” existence as two completely unrelated things can have consequences, and not just in job interviews

That said, as your last paragraph alludes to, a lot of folks communicate pretty differently in written and spoken contexts, worth bearing in mind when you’re sizing up potential targets. That smooth and witty blogger might turn out to be too shy and retiring to get through the soup course, or the wise and confident advisor may turn out to be at the loud and braying end of the scale

On balance though, more communication and more data wins out. Internet ftw.

Btw, those gloves with the stars on the back of the hand are pretty cool

By: Lauren Fisher

Lauren Fisher — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:26:29 +0000

But your harmonica playing is what we know and love you for! That, and your amazing directing skills of course.

By: Lauren Fisher

Lauren Fisher — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:24:27 +0000

Wow, is that really you?! You wouldn’t be lying now Mark?