A Side Effect of Using Location in Tweets; Credibility
October 19, 2010 – 12:43 pm
I noticed in a Wall Street Journal Tweet that they included location, which of course was the WSJ headquarters. My reaction? That it further legitimized the Tweet, showing that it emanated from the real HQ, not some random place. As you can see in the exchange below, another Twitterer, Josh Chandler, suggested that reporters could turn on location from where they send Tweets as well (a little map showing a reporter is actually in Kabul – or wherever – adds a whole new flavor of authenticity, doesn’t it?).
I guess you’ll never know where geo-location will actually stumble on to a practical use. sometimes it’s just the little things.
Josh Chandler’s Input:
@DougH - I don't think it really matters whether location is turned on. I guess @WSJ could use it for "Reporters On The Scene" tweets.
@joshchandler
Josh Chandler
4 Responses to “A Side Effect of Using Location in Tweets; Credibility”
Pretty easy to fake location, though.
By Peter Kim on Oct 20, 2010
True, but I was thinking more that it hadn’t occurred to WSJ (or likely others) that including location (on your legitimate posts) does have a positive effect on the reader (this reader at least). Small, but nice, side effect.
By Doug Haslam on Oct 20, 2010
Doug,
Thanks for featuring my thoughts about @WSJ and location on your blog post.
Honestly, if we are transitioning to citizen journalism, why can’t WSJ build a dedicated map on their website which features reporters with their associated location and tweets about the event.
Twitter did it at SXSW this year and it worked very well!
By Josh Chandler on Oct 20, 2010