Jason Unger

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Twitter is the best tool for getting information on the Web. I don't say that lightly, but it's designed exactly for how we interact with the Internet.

We don't read online. We especially do not read long content. So limiting what you have to say to 140 characters forces you to get right to the point — a great way to practice your Web headlines.

Add in the fact that you're getting content from people you trust, and Twitter becomes an amazing way to get and convey information.

But as a Web publisher, Twitter puts you in a predicament: if you can get your message across as a Tweet, why bother blogging about it?

Penelope Trunk argues that Twitter is for a different side of you — not necessarily your blog face. "If you express yourself in the same way on a blog and on Twitter, then you don’t need both," she writes.

Brian Clark said Twitter "may well be the end of Copyblogger," but instead of sending out tidbits on copywriting and online marketing, he tweets a lot of quotes.

They say Twitter is about conversations, but in reality, it's about delivering valuable content to your followers.

I just finished a book recommended to me on Twitter. I've suggested a site about moving scams to Chris Pearson, who was looking for a mover. And I've helped convince Davis Freeberg to sign up for Vonage (though I didn't get a referral, darn).

Penelope is right — Twitter is for another side of you: the shorter, more-to-the-point side. I was thinking about writing a blog about Leo Laporte's new TWiT Live, but I could say it in less than 140 characters, so I tweeted it instead.

The people who subscribe to your blog and the people who follow you on Twitter do it for one main reason: they're interested in what you have to say. (Forget for a moment the trolls who follow everyone just to be followed.)

Don't fret if you find yourself Twittering more than blogging. It's not that big of a deal.

As long as you're delivering useful content to your audience, everyone wins.

Follow me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/junger

As a guy who grew up reading comics and watching cartoons, this is hilarious.

Somehow, I don't think that's what Stan Lee had in mind …

Dear Sage,

I'm sorry to tell you … it's over between us.

I've moved on. I'm drinking the Kool-Aid. I'm a Google Reader user now.

You were my first RSS reader, and I'll remember our days fondly. You taught me about the importance of website headlines, and why content should come to me … not the other way around.

But you were almost too easy to use. I could have you open throughout the day and check you constantly. It was a real time suck. How could I ever get anything done if you were constantly teasing me with your new stories?

Google Reader is different. I actually have to go to a page to read stories. And it's made it obvious that I was overloaded with feeds. Believe it or not, I've cut down. I have to, or I'll never keep up.

It's been a difficult transition — I've already failed at it once — but this time it's going to stick. Sage, I'll always remember you as my first RSS reader, but it's time to move on.

Thanks for all the memories.

Your friend,
Jason

I hate when people say the Internet is going to completely replace deadtree media. It's completely ridiculous.

Printed media is not going to die, it's just going through a major shift in content. Obviously, newspapers are not real-time. Magazines are not real-time. The Internet is.

So what should a print publication do to survive? Embrace that it isn't real-time.

The latest conversation on this comes with the launch of Dispatches, a quarterly magazine based on analysis of events, not news. (Yes, they do have a Web site.)

Why this is newsworthy I don't know. But for some reason, it gets people asking: is print dead?

Mashable, for example, gets it completely wrong.

The printed magazine, content-wise, is just like a web page taken offline: nothing more, nothing less. Is there any hope for the print, then?

First off, people do not read online. Jakob Nielsen has been saying this for 11 years.

People do read offline. When you have paper in your hand, it's a lot easier to focus on one thing. Reading offline is a different experience. You're sitting on the sofa, feet up, relaxed and a drink in hand. You don't sit at your computer desk like that, do you?

Content presentation matters. Big time. Because of that, certain content fares better online while other is better in print. So why bother comparing the two? It's like putting a square peg in a round hole. It doesn't work.

The commenters in TechDirt's coverage of the story mostly seem to be missing the point. It's not about competing with the Internet; it's about offering content in-tune with the delivery and format of the publication.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of noise in this discussion: blogs, balance and bias all get thrown into the mix. Forget about that — it's a different topic.

It's not about the competition; it's about maximizing the user experience. And everytime you think of your users first, you win.

If the Internet is all about conversations, why aren't you asking more questions?

Discuss.