Yesterday some of us participated in the flagship physician Tweetchat (MDChat). Or better, I tried to participate between finishing up some calls and choking down a bean burrito.
When the idea was initially proposed to me I committed only to supporting its initiation with the occasional role of host. I’m simply overcommitted but wanted to support Phil Baumann and those who were willing to try to break new ground.
So I lurked, chewed, and pondered.
Doctors or not, everyone knows I’ve been a pretty lukewarm proponent of the tweetchat. I think they’re noisy, difficult to follow, and too abbreviated for constructive dialog. As early adopters I think we tend to put the novelty of the medium above its practicality.
With that said, chats can be fun. It’s a situation where I feel comfortable while at once restless. Kind of like at a medical staff meeting where the agenda doesn’t hold me quite as much as just being among my friends.
At the end of the day I might agree with Dr. Anonymous that the average physician new to social media might not find a twitter chat as the best way to spend a precious hour. For me that hour represents the better part of a blog post which, over the course of a month, will influence hundreds of readers and live forever.
But I suspect that there will always be those among us looking for companionship over content. And it’s hard to argue with that.
{ 15 comments }
Good feedback.
I’m looking to see how this evolves – when I started RNchat over a year ago, I had some of the similar feedback from nurses as well.
But over time, things were sorted out and we all figured out what the value propositions were, and I suspect we’ll see the same for docs.
Thanks for being part of the first chat!
Leadership: it’s hard. But fun.
@PhilBaumann
@MD_chat
I agree, Dr. V. I tried to participate as I wanted it to succeed, but it felt too noisy and unorganized. I find the same with the other tweetchats in which I have lurked.
I’ll hope that Phil is right and will give it time.
I hope I’m right too, but I understand and have considered that I may not.
Ultimately, we won’t know until we actually execute a project, which is what this is.
As I’ve said before, Twitter isn’t for everyone and nor are these kinds of chats.
But I would point out this: I believe that Twitter is giving us a glimpse of what communication in the 21st Century may look like: noisy, rapid, crazy, valuable, useless, useful, etc.
Twitter isn’t one thing: it’s a bit social, a bit communicative, a bit utilitarian – there isn’t one single purpose.
Twitter – and more so Twitter chats – are like those Magic Eye stereograms – it takes a certain way of looking to see what’s going on: you may or may like care for the picture, but your way of seeing things changes.
Tuesday’s chat was N=1 as data point. I’ll reserve any prejudgement until N grows a bit.
PS: I really want physicians to participate more actively (that’s the only way we’ll hear them), but also lead these chats – they have a deeper understanding of the nuances of their profession, and it’s those nuances which need voicing.
Phil
While we all recognize that there may be some benefit, the question is: is it valuable enough to expend an hour of time. The market will decide.
The value proposition is different for different people.
Time is a valuable resources – not only for physicians but *everybody* else in the world. We all have the same 24 hours.
Not everybody sees value in blogs – and they don’t believe they’re worth the time – the require steady content, discipline and interaction.
One thing I noticed on Tuesday’s chat was the emergence of new voices – we’ve only had a small minority of physician voices so far: but my guess is that’s going to change, quicker than we may suspect.
As we see more adoption, we’ll also see a wider range of which platforms physicians close, be they public or proprietary.
That’s why I consider it premature to use N=1 chat as a data point.
Not sure anybody cares if the “market decides” – there’s no winner or loser here, and people will chose what matters to them – even if it’s just a small group of value-extractors.
Phil
A Tweetchat is a hardcore Twitter activity that can be most useful for finding new people and being found. The connections are high quality and the chat time give you a place to connect every week.
When I can’t make my favorite #hcsm Health Communication Social Media chat I review the transcript. Phil created one for us at the link below.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38772370/MDchat-Transcript-October-5-2010
I also use the What the Hashtag?! site that keeps the active links. That link is here:
http://bit.ly/9Rb5jn
Now all this hashtag, RT gibberish can be imposing, but having a guide and spending a little time with the system is easier than reading doctor’s handwriting.
Tweetchats are an interesting concept but my readers don’t want tidbits of a many-to-many conversation flooding their streams. They don’t mind a one-to-one tweetchat because anyone can click on the other profile and read along but even that can be difficult because it isn’t presented in a reader-friendly manner. I try not to engage in many-to-many tweetchats as a courtesy to my Twitter friends (and I am also over-committed on time). Then again, it’s a shame I didn’t know #MDChat even existed until I found this blog post through a friend’s DM on Twitter.
The problem is Twitter really isn’t the medium for this sort of exchange. A moderated IRC channel would be far more useful because it is designed to make many-to-many conversations more manageable for participants and lurkers – as long as people follow well-established best practices. IRC also makes it easy to put a copy of the chat online for archival purposes so people can catch up on what they missed. Do I see IRC being used any time soon? No but maybe another online chat site can be used in its place.
You make excellent point – in fact I agree with them, but without excluding the potential value of Twitter.
Here’s the problem: Twitter is unique. One can’t look at Twitter in comparison to other platforms like IRC or blogs. It’s more experiential than about clean content. It can also generate a lot more serendipity.
Deciding whether tweetchats are a good idea or not – remains to be seen – based solely on comparing them to other platforms is a bit like deciding whether Blue is better than Red.
Then again, there’s no accounting for taste. And that may be what this all rests on.
Phil
I was thrilled to see that much activity in #MDchat.
You all hit on a couple of important points:
1. That contacts and relationships are vital (while FB is the relationships from our past… college friends, family. Twitter is professional contacts from the future).
Perhaps it has worked well for us nurses because we go in, work ourselves to death and come home, we rarely go to conferences, speak, join organizations to network, etc.
2. The format can be a little difficult to read, but is much improved with the use of Hootsuite or Tweetdeck. Patience and transcripts are also beneficial. After all, it is technology.
In a typical week I do not get to spend an hour with a group of bright nurses just hashing out issues (I call it brain candy), let alone connect with nurses from all over the country to hear their opinions or what their hospitals are doing to solve certain patient/nursing issues. #RNChat has allowed me to do that and has allowed me to connect with nurses from all of the country who are doing innovative things in their practice that I can learn from.
Thanks Phil for running both. We will see if #MDchat develops a tribe following for both chat and hashtag information as RNChat has. I will be interested to watch what happens.
I’m neither a doctor nor a huge fan of tweetchats. Too many of the tweetchats appear as you describe: noisy, difficult to follow and abrupt.
On the other hand, with a little attention to details they can be useful. The folks who run the weekly #innochat, each Thursday do an excellent job. They start with a blog post, a series of questions, and a moderator helps keep it focused.
Some days I cannot attend it live. That’s ok. I search twitter for #innochat. And up pops the entire stream of tweets. I can quickly scan through them, favorite the ones I like, follow new members, RT or expand on any tweets…at my leisure. The hashtag #innochat keeps my later participation part of the conversation.
As others here noted, it’s a matter of taste and temperament and schedules, too.
Nice post. Thanks.
I participated in the Tweetchat and enjoyed it immensely. One of the things that I think that people miss is the fact that any Tweetchat is simply the beginning of a conversation. On both the MDChat earlier this week and #hcsm chats in the past I have had the opportunity to meet individuals whom I (perhaps) would have never met in any other circumstance. In many of these cases the initial meeting at the chat has lead to meaningful conversations (via Twitter, FB and Email) as well as collaboration on projects outside of Twitter.
I would encourage all to be patient and to allow this new medium to develop organically. I don’t think any of us can say what this may develop into.
Thanks for the conversation, Dr. V.
I eagerly attended (lurked at) the inaugural MDchat and encouraged (forced) one of my colleagues who doesn’t much participate in Twitter into it as well. Tweet chats always fly by so fast, and it’s hard to suppress my natural tendency to try not to miss anything, which is utterly impossible. That being said, I enjoyed it, as did my colleague.
But why? Where’s the benefit?
I’m not a doctor (sorry mom), yet I do understand how precious time is for those who are. Every effort needs to be measured in terms of time not spent on something else. So finding the value of time spent in a session such as MDchat is clearly subject to the personal demands of all potential participants. And, along the lines of what Phil Baumann stated, I feel that value can only be determined over time.
In the short run, I think that Dr. Onyeije’s comment above is spot on with his assessment …
“… any Tweetchat is simply the beginning of a conversation … the opportunity to meet individuals whom I (perhaps) would have never met in any other circumstance. In many of these cases the initial meeting at the chat has lead to meaningful conversations (via Twitter, FB and Email) as well as collaboration on projects outside of Twitter.”
No, it’s not for everyone. Many will find their time better spent on other endeavors for exceedingly valid reasons. But I suspect that for some it will be a way of opening doors, forging new relationships, and ultimately collaborating on a healthier future.
i’m not a doctor, nor do i play one on TV. i am, however, the founder of a tweetchat on workplace wellness (@co_health) and a communication consultant who works with companies trying to engage employees and their families in better health. i wanted to pipe in on the value of the tweetchat as i see it.
here’s a rundown of who participates in the @co_health tweetchat: wellness managers, communication professionals, doctors, psychologists, insurers and public health workers. that’s an astounding variety of professionals you’d typically never get together, and the tweetchat and twitter facilitate this crashing down of silos.
what does bring us all together is the same passion. because we’re from different backgrounds, we learn from and with one another. we also design and contribute together. we crowdsourced an entry into the institute for the future’s bodyshock the future contest and got into the top 5. the idea to crowdsource the entry started with a tweetchat focused on the idea of crowdsourcing workplace wellness solutions.
we haven’t always kicked off our tweetchat’s with a blog, but i love that idea. instead, we share the topic we’re covering and then lead, as most do, with several related questions. after each chat, we provide a summary along with the transcript. this has been very valuable for all, as it crystallizes the themes and makes the chat understandable for those who couldn’t participate.
from a technical perspective, i find tweetchat.com indispensable. it creates blinders for me and automatically adds our chat’s hashtag (#co_health).
f
Bryan and all,
I too was only able to lurk for a few minutes for this first TweetChat, as I was involved in the very real world proposition and duty of getting my eighty year old mother-in-law to the neurologist. Sometimes, as much as I love social media and blogging and all they entail, real life does intervene and noisily call for our attention.
I look forward to seeing where this goes. One small piece of feedback: the time slot during the day did not work well for me. I work a very strange and wonderful schedule, but overall I prefer to do participate in these types of activities in the early to mid-evening.
Thanks for doing the leg work to get this up and running. I realize that it is a thankless job, but a necessary one.
Greg
I wanna echo what you stated in the original post Dr. V. “I think they’re noisy, difficult to follow, and too abbreviated for constructive dialog.” I could think of a couple other adjectives to describe tweet chats, but tweet chats are just not the right medium for conversation.
Why not have a live chat stream instead, they were created and designed for this very purpose. Tweeting as its stands doesn’t function well under live circumstances, there is just no other way to put it. Sure post some information so it gets logged in the library of congress, but try and go access it later on among the millions of tweets, or try and quickly copy the link down before it blows past your tweet chat conversation.
There are better ways to bring people from all areas of the medical profession together for a communal conversation. The conversations at #sweedish100 could have even been better as well, instead people just keep repeating the information being stated in the live video feed. Doesn’t sound like conversation to me! The speakers and topic discussed were great but the tweets written only served those who weren’t watching live and are one way reporting. The bottom line, I don’t believe tweet chats utilize the innate abilities twitter provides. Other mediums such as live stream chats would be better suited for this idea.