March 9, 2011 | By: Tracy

Would You Rather - Wednesday (Battle of the Social Networks)


Alright people, we need to have a little talk here.

I know some of these questions can be tough to choose, because - depending on your circumstances - there may be no clear cut winner. I get that. Truly, I do.

But it's called Would You Rather for a reason. Otherwise it would be called In An Ideal World, or If I Could Have Exactly What I Wanted . . . and quite frankly, both of those games sound a little boring to me.

So stop asking me if you can have both or refuse to accept either, 'cause that's cheating!!


Although, it's perfectly okay with me if you admit that you can't bring yourself to choose for the blog. That I respect. It's those of you who try weaseling escape clauses into your answers that I have my eye on.

(Obviously, this is all meant in jest . . . unless I happen to be totally serious)

My research from last week's question : Whether you would rather spend 10 years with your soulmate or 60 years with a runner-up proved that we writers tend to be more like our characters than we admit. (Or maybe it's the other way around).  66% of you decided you would rather deal with the loneliness later than miss out on the time with your soulmate.

Or to quote Shelby from Steele Magnolias: "I would rather have thirty minutes of wonderful than a lifetime of nothing special"  (Sadly, we all know how that turned out)

As sadistic as it sounds (and I'm still not sure I won't change my mind at some point) I think I'd put myself through the torture too.

Now on to this week's social networking focus:

Would you rather have. . . ?


A) One-thousand blog followers


or 


B) Ten-thousand Twitter followers

We're talking genuine followers (no spambots) in both scenarios.

27 witty remarks:

Dan said...

A. I'd rather subject a thousand people to my rants than let ten thousand know when I eat a sandwich.

aLmYbNeNr said...

One-thousand blog followers. Especially since they are real people. I can say a lot more in my blogs and since I review books, I could hopefully get those one-thousand people to read a little bit more. :)

Pk Hrezo said...

Definitely B. Blogging is much more personal... makes me feel like a DJ, spinning records for my fans. lol :p

Will Burke said...

I'd default to A, since I don't Tweet. It just comes down to time, and the hundreds of Blogs that I can't visit regularly, so I haven't signed up for the "Micro Blogging."

Rachel Morgan said...

Yeah, 1000 blog followers rather. I don't say all that much on Twitter!

Stina Lindenblatt said...

No contest. A. Of course I hope a large majority actually read my posts and not just follow me, but I know how difficult that can be. I can only read so many a day before my brain explodes. ;)

Gina said...

Blog followers, all the way. The only thing I Tweet are my blog posts, anyway!

Autumn Shelley said...

A.
I would much rather have a thousand people reading my blog than me having to figure out all that damn Twitter-ese. Ugh! :)

Rogue Mutt said...

Tweeting's a lot easier than blogging, so B.

Summer Frey said...

Oh A for sure. I can barely follow the Tweets of a hundred people. If I had 10k, I'd probably just give up.

Elena Solodow said...

I'm going with A.

Matthew MacNish said...

Definitely 1000 blog followers. Sure some of them never come back, but people follow quite frivolously on Twitter. Plus I never go there.

Erica Mitchell-Spickard said...

1000 followers or 10k on Twitter. Considering I never tweet unless I absolutley friggin' have to, the followers. A. Interesting fact, a twit is a baby goldfish (or something like that or I totally made that up) and/or someone I can't stand. Honestly, I just enjoy people who enjoy me because I'm slightly narcisistic in that way ;) I love my bloggies. AND, glad to have you on board!
TEAM DEAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chris Phillips said...

One thousand blog follwers, oh wait... unless one of my twitter followers is charlie sheen, wait can I have him as one of my 1,000 blog followers? Can I just have both?

Sophia Richardson said...

A. and I'd hope at least a few would post inciteful comments-- I like to have some back and forth, the blog isn't supposed to be a lecture but a discussion. Since I may have been one of the weasellers last week (ahem), in the end I'd go with 10 years with the soul mate, too.
- Sophia.

Misha said...

Blog followers.

I just feel as if there's a stronger sense of community among bloggers.

:-)

Michael Offutt said...

What Misha said. There is definitely more camrederie in a blog than in twitter.

E.C. Smith said...

A, for sure. A blog is just more connective, supportive. There is a sense of community that I love, and I learn all kinds of cool stuff from bloggers.

Melissa said...

SWEET! An easy one! I would totally choose a thousand blog followers. One, I don't have a twitter. Two, blogs are way more personal! SO that one wins...by a landslide (of followers?!)

Kindros said...

Too clear for me, A. I could live off blogging that way, lol. :)

(I'm so dirty, don't deserve the good company, lol.)

Kari Marie said...

A. I don't use Twitter that much, of course I don't really know how. Blogging I can do.

Stacy McKitrick said...

I don't Twitter, either (not even sure I know HOW it works!). So I pick A. Because I do have a blog!

JEFritz said...

One thousand blog followers. People seem to pay attention to blog posts more than tweets.

Meredith said...

A, definitely. Twitter freaks me out for some reason. Blogging seems more manageable, and more personal.

Christopher said...

Blog followers. I put a lot more effort into my blogs than my random BS tweets so I'd rather have more people read that.

Jeigh said...

Blog followers for sure.

David Powers King said...

1000 blog followers. I don't twitter yet. :P

Post a Comment