Comments on: Is 140 Characters a Magic Number?

By: tillers for sale

tillers for sale — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:15:18 +0000

the 140 character limit is so that it fits in SMS messages

By: Marketing guy

Marketing guy — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:44:13 +0000

I looked back on my last 20 SMS messages and they were all less than 140 chars, so I don’t see any reason to have more in Twitter.

By: Property Management Software

Property Management Software — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:27:06 +0000

There was a lot of research that went in on the 140 char rule. I believe it’s the same for SMS texts. I believe it started back in the telegraph days where that many characters was the least amount necessary to accurately get across almost all english messages.

By: Discount Sunglasses

Discount Sunglasses — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:40:19 +0000

I do not think that it is the magic number. I am an avid text messager and I get more than 140 characters (160 to be exact) and that is never enough for me.

I’m not a fan of small talk either. Imagine if we were limited to 140 characters in everyday speaking life? No good.

I do not use Twitter. Blogs suit me better where i can use as many characters as my little heart desires

-Caroline

By: Hypotheken

Hypotheken — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:05:23 +0000

Although the 140 limit is exactly the same as text messages it feels like it is much less. The difference between using keyboard or numbers on a cell phone is the problem. You can type much more in the same time.

By: remove conficker

remove conficker — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:11:13 +0000

i think 140 was chosen to fit with the limit for text messages. That is a good number because text messages were already familiar to many people. I believe it was the best choice.

By: Kill Conficker

Kill Conficker — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:05:07 +0000

Even 140 seems a little low, but then again some people like to talk a lot.

By: János T-E

János T-E — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:23:29 +0000

I like the Swedish microblog service Bloggy.se. It has the 140 limit only on first “tweet”, but comments on the tweet has no character limitations. This has the effect of stimulation discussions, which tend to be quite lively at Bloggy.

By: John Kremer

John Kremer — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:10:13 +0000

I like 140. Just enough. Forces me to be succinct. Less would make it difficult to express complete thoughts. More would be excessive for purpose.

By: Nancy Mills

Nancy Mills — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:24:44 +0000

You know, I have actually thought about that number myself. But, it seems to work. At first it seemed way to short, then – under the would you believe category – I found myself having trouble FILLING IT UP. I like having to think more briefly – in a sense if you think like a copywriter who must generate enticing headlines – the same is true here if you want people to continue to follow you.

You can follow me @spiritedwoman. Let me know what you think. Nancy

By: Vanja

Vanja — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:37:25 +0000

Know your audience. For email subject lines suggestion of 50 characters for powerful and emotive while 80 characters for enticing. So perhaps their is some application of the theory on twitter too.

By: Depesh

Depesh — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:38:55 +0000

oh, fantastic…! LOL

By: Julien Coquet

Julien Coquet — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:35:59 +0000

Depesh, look at 140it.com and cry

By: Depesh

Depesh — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:28:26 +0000

My only concern is if and when Tweets end up written in TXT LNGUAGE 2 KP IT SHORT! C YA!

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:51:49 +0000

I find I am always 2 characters short – but then again, I’ve been accused of talking too much so that fits.

I really have come to believe that 140 characters works perfectly. Any longer and it’s too long. 140 is perfect for skimming.

By: LEADSExplorer

LEADSExplorer — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:02:41 +0000

Maybe our web pages should consist of Twitter like texts: http://bit.ly/eZhix
As people scan instead of read.

By: Xavier Casanova

Xavier Casanova — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:44:12 +0000

Side question: does anyone “know” why twitter works? (I don’t)

By: conficker

conficker — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:49:50 +0000

I think this was an effort to save resources. Think drink refills. If they make the drinks just the right size, they can get you to finish only two during your visit. This is a similar effect, enough to say what you want, but not enough to clog up databases.

By: Trevor Roald

Trevor Roald — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:01:13 +0000

I think this discussion is interesting; however, because the 140 character is a technical limitation imposed by the mobile carriers as part of the Global System for Mobile Communications standard, a bit useless. Unless Twitter moves away from supporting SMS (which would be crazy), we all just need to rise to the challenge and remember that brevity is best.

By: Manley Miller

Manley Miller — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:13:54 +0000

140 is magical. Discussion over. It worked – and that’s what matters. I also find when it comes to brothers; the more attractive you are, the more succinctly you’re able to speak.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:22:06 +0000

140 was chosen to fit with the limit for text messages. That is a good number because text messages were already familiar to many people. I believe it was the best choice.

Personally, I wish it were limited to 70. I never use the whole 140 and think with would make for better tweets at a lower character count.

By: Juan Tornoe

Juan Tornoe — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:52:18 +0000

It would be a better world out there if they allowed 157 characters

By: bansi patel

bansi patel — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:56:48 +0000

70 characters would definitely be a challenge, while 210 is too much. I think 120 including a tiny url would have to be the minimum…

By: Freda

Freda — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:52:35 +0000

what character?
my-key or done-all/duck!

By: Paul Stoltzfus

Paul Stoltzfus — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:29:53 +0000

Less is more. 50 is enough. PLUS URL field