TwitterHawk: Even if you start here, then what?
Yesterday I learned, by way of Krista Neher, of a new tool called TwitterHawk, and I’m disappointed. Not with the creators of the tool, which seems rather well-done, but with the approach the tool takes and, more importantly, the position in which it leaves its users.
TwitterHawk monitors Twitter for messages that match your criteria — say, include the word coffee and come from someone in Minneapolis — and then automatically sends a message from your account to the coffee-mentioner. It’s nice in that it’s smart enough to monitor for more than keywords: TwitterHawk let’s you focus in directing messages at Twitterers from a certain location and even set a rate of messages to send per day (to help alleviate accusations of spamming).
But here’s my problem with it: Even if we grant that the basic, automated monitor-then-respond trick is OK, then what? Let’s look at TwitterHawk’s own example: If someone, within a few miles of your new coffee shop, tweets about coffee, TwitterHawk sees that and responds for you. Great. But in TwitterHawk’s own example, the responder-bot asks a question: “@coffeementioner Have you seen our new Coffee Shop in Queens?”
What if that coffee-tweet writes back to you after seeing the TwitterHawk message? Uh oh! Now you suddenly have to be a human who uses Twitter to actually, you know, talk to people. Why not just do that in the first place, then?! Not only is this likely simply because Twitterers are chatty, but you’re asking a question! That’s great when people are actually communicating with each other, but that’s asking for trouble if you’re relying on an automated system.
Here’s another thing: Unless the person TwitterHawk is talking to for you is already following your account — that is, unless @coffeementioner is already following @newcoffeeshop — it’s pretty unlikely @coffeementioner is going to see the message from @newcoffeeshop. Outside of the realm of Web-minded marketers, bloggers and other digital-egomaniacs, it’s pretty rare for people to be monitoring Twitter for mentions of their name.
And if @coffeementioner does see the message from @newcoffeeshop, it’s likely that she’s going to be curious about this new Twitterer talking to her, and she’s going to go check out @newcoffeeshop’s profile. When she sees the last several tweets from @coffeeshop and notices how many of them are the exact same “Have you seen our new shop?” message to other Twitterers, she’s going to see little value in making a connection with @newcoffeeshop.
So here, conveniently at the bottom of this longer-than-I-intended post, is the bottom line: If the monitoring and messaging done by TwitterHawk is going to have any non-spam value, it’s going to require the user to engage and make connections and be humanly present on Twitter anyway. Why not just start that way?
Related items
Hi,
Thanks for your opinion on TwitterHawk, while we appreciate everyones thoughts, there’s just a few things we’d like to point out.
1. The tool is only there to start the interaction, it is up to the user to create a proper relationship, we find them, you interact with them.
2. Users dont need to stumble on @replies, they are listed when they view their reply list.
3. Messages sent out are rotated through (currently) up to 5 different responses setup by the user to keep things fresh. And if the send is using twitter anyway, the list of recent tweets will very well disguise any other automated replies. (see our own account for verification of this).
4. If the sender does indeed only have automated responses in their recently sent list, they are probably just using the tool for SPAM, and so will be deactivated upon investigation
So again, thanks for your comments but we’d just like to re-affirm that we only start the interaction based on what you are looking for, it is up to the users to make a lasting relationship.
Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate the discussion. Let me address the points you’ve made:
1) That’s good to hear; it’s good to know, as I expect you did, that you acknowledge this tool is just the beginning. Does your tool allow for some way to find these relevant Twitter mentions and not respond automatically — instead listing the results to later be acted on only by a human?
If not, there are other tools that allow for basically the same function, without the potential trouble that could be caused from being perceived as a spammer.
2) Yes, but are messages, even those in the proper reply format, displayed in my “replies” tab if they’re from someone who I’m not following? If so, that’s a change I was unaware of.
3) That’s a good point, and having up to five different responses to be chosen from is a great function. But the second half of your point sorta proves mine: If you’re using Twitter anyway, why would you risk being seen as a Twitter abuser? Have you seen the number of people complaining about automatically generated “thanks for following me”-type messages?
4) That’s good to know. Thanks for pointing that out.
I’m glad you’ve clarified what you did, but I think #3 above alone is enough to keep me from recommending this tool to anyone for now.
Hey,
Cheers for the quick response. At the moment no, there isn’t the ability to just grab a list of replies that match your search and send you a report, this is though something we are looking into.
3) Again, I just want to point out that this tool finds people that you normally probably wouldn’t have found on your own, and starts the interaction, it is then up to you to make a relationship out of it.
In the end, like anything and everyone, we can’t make everybody happy! Such is life.
We respect that the tool isn’t quite right for you yet, but with the future changes who knows, perhaps some day it will be
Twitter Comment
I agree w/ @mjkeliher on TwitterHawk – [link to post] – Technology is great for monitoring, but keep the conversations human.
– Posted using Chat Catcher
1. I’m liking “digital-egomaniac.” Mjkeliher does it again!
2. I like TwitterHawk for responding to you like they did.
3. I have to agree with you though, Mike. Point #3 of your most recent comment is enough to make this tool useless for anyone who actually cares about how they come across via Twitter. Man I hate auto-replies. I’m a digital egomaniac who wants personal messages or no message at all!
Auto-response from mjkeliher: Liz, thanks for following. Please check out my blog!
Hey All,
Let’s just say that the main gripe / suggestion that you are all hinting towards is extremely close to the direction that we will be heading in.
More details will be released over the coming days via our main site, and via our twitter account (@twithawk).
All the best,
Chris – TwitterHawk
Twitter Comment
@DoctorJones Post on TwitterHawk from @mjkeliher – [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher