The real-time web versus the static web . . .

There is a lot written about the real-time web these days: Twitter, Friendfeed, and to some extent Facebook with its real-time status updates.I've seen quite a few people abandon their blogs in favor of spending more time on Twitter.

There is a lot written about the real-time web these days: Twitter, Friendfeed, and to some extent Facebook with its real-time status updates.

I've seen quite a few people abandon their blogs in favor of spending more time on Twitter. Or rather, running out of time to post on their blogs.

But is this a wise strategy? Twitter has become a very useful "micro-blogging" tool and I use it a lot (@tomforemski on Twitter.) But I also continue to blog a lot.

However, some people are moving into the real-time web as their sole form of expression.

I believe you have to be active in both the real-time and the static web. It's not about either/or but both. Which means you have to spend more time publishing.

It's important to continue to be active in the static web because it's a way to build up a legacy of content. And that legacy of content and links is part of the social media capital that is important and valuable.

This social media capital roughly equates to what Google calls "pagerank" it is a way to judge the importance and trustworthiness of one piece of content compared to another. And the only way that judgement can be made is over a period of time, and over a period of consistent quality of content.

That kind of measure could be done in the real-time web but it's not clear if it is being done -- yet.

Newsletters

You have been successfully signed up. To sign up for more newsletters or to manage your account, visit the Newsletter Subscription Center.
See All
See All