So, I’ve been underwhelmed by Twitter. Short snippets of info aren’t really my thing (for giving or getting). I will admit I’ve found some interesting articles via the people I follow, but I get interesting articles from following people’s posts on Facebook, too. (Although Facebook now has the annoying habit of not sharing every post by fan pages, so you might not be seeing all that’s offered.)
Worse, I haven’t been able to find anything to tweet, other than an automatic post notifying people of a new blog post (which they could get via e-mail if they subscribe). This is probably why I have, on average, all of 6 followers. I will gain one or two every now and again, but then lose them after a day or two. (Apparently it’s common for people to follow you, just so you’ll follow them back, then they dump you.)
People who are not celebrities manage to tweet and keep people interested. So what are they doing? I’m not sure, but surely it’s not because they’re tweeting what they had for lunch. I think the majority of tweets need to be educational or witty. They have to enrich the readers’ lives in some way. (Unless you’re famous, at which point gossip is an acceptable category of tweets.)
I was on Smashwords today, laughing at some of the truly God-awful book descriptions. I started to share one on Facebook, then it dawned on me that I might do it on Twitter instead. So I’m trying out what I call “bad book descriptions” (#BBD). Sometimes it doesn’t work too well–namely when a long, unwieldy sentence is the main problem–but I think it has potential. Cliches abound. Spelling and grammar errors are rife. (Sorry, but if you can’t write a typo-free, grammatically-correct book description in 1,000 characters or less, then you need to stop writing. You’re giving the rest of the self-published authors a bad reputation.) And topics of the absurd will shock and titillate. (I shit-you-not, I’ve already covered a book on bestiality.)
So go to Twitter and see if you get a laugh like I did.