live-tweeting from Berkman @ 10

I'm contributing my observations here at the Berkman @ 10 conference to the Twitterstream as @itsthomas, and you can follow my tweets (and others) over on Twemes at the following URL: http://twemes.com/berkman

While I used to live-blog this stuff, I've feel that live-tweeting is better than live-blogging.

If you'd really rather read someone live-blogging, take a gander at Ethan Zuckerman's work over on his blog. (we're sitting next to each other)

a better way to broadcast: live-tweeting or live-blogging?

I'm at the Online Community Business Forum in Santa Fe, NM, and this is the first time I've attended an event where so many other folks are live-tweeting the proceedings on Twitter (follow me: itsthomas).

Thanks to the mad twitter skills of @sharakarasic, @dwitzel, @astrout, @hjstrout, @scottmoore and @frandallfarmer all using the #ocbf2008 tag, I'm now changing my mind about the best way to capture an event so others can follow along.

I used to think live blogging was the best way: within minutes (or within seconds if you're good) of an event being over, the rest of the world could absorb the content as if they'd been there themselves (minus the ability to raise one's hand and ask a question). Thanks to tagging, one can quickly get a list of all the live bloggers in a room and read each of their takes on the discussion. Somewhere in the crossover of all the blog posts was certain to be a fairly decent sketch of the actual proceedings.

Now that I'm watching the results of a group live-tweeting an event, I can see even greater benefits to the micro-blogging of germaine points via Twitter:

1. Twitter shows what topics are resonating greatest with the audience: the more folks tweeting the same thing, the greater the impact the idea is having. One would have to look across several blogs to find shared topics (if they were shared at all) and triangulate in on the temporal overlap of points.
   
2. The Tweet stream self-corrects: if one twitter post captures a statistic or quote incompletely or incorrectly, there are likely other tweets around it to correct or refine the point. Again, the temporal overlap is missing in blog posts, so it's difficult to cross-reference outside the micro-blogging stream.
   
3. Via Twitter, those outside the room can jump into the room: replying to a live-tweeter with a question to pass along to the speaker is more than possible (still waiting to see it, though). Live-blogging after the fact simply does not afford this luxury of jumping in from afar.
4. Twitter gives folks a leg up to network in the time between speakers: You've just spent an hour live-tweeting the same event, what better way to begin the conversation about other interests you share, and cement them over time by following each other on Twitter.
   

Just as savvy speakers have been able to leverage back-channels to see how their talk is going and course-correct mid-presentation, a savvy speaker can peer into the Tweet stream to see whether their message is hitting home (or even simply making sense).

While I began this event by live-blogging the first two speakers (Alan Webber and Rohit Bhargava), I think I'll be switching to live-Tweeting from here on out. You can follow along on our group effort using Tweetscan on ocbf2008.

Tip of the hat to Andy Carvin (@acarvin) for drawing my attention to the power of live-tweeting by including me in the many events he attends through his own twitter prowess.

Who have you found to be good at live-tweeting? or do you prefer the live-blogging style?

What do you think?

fwiw, here's my live-blogging of two sessions at OCBF2008 with Alan Webber and Rohit Bhargava