Why I switched from Bufferapp to Timely for Tweet buffering

Posted on December 26, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 6 Comments

Update – 2/21/2013

With the demise of Timely, I am now using Hootsuite for my update scheduling. Hootsuite now has an “auto scheduling” function which is very handy. There are two downsides to Hootsuite. First, using the auto feature, there is no way to control the time of the tweets or the number of tweets scheduled per day. The second downside is that there is no option to using bit.ly as the URL shortener. The only choice is to use the owl.ly functionality built into Hootsuite. Neither of these two issues are deal breakers for me.

Original Post

I had been using Bufferapp for Tweet buffering for a long while. Recently I discovered a similar service called Timely. Both of these apps provide a buffer for spacing out Tweets. When I am looking at RSS feeds or catching up on email I often find links that I’d like to share. The beauty of Buffer or Timely is that instead of bombarding my followers with a bunch of tweets all in a row, I can put them into a buffer that sends them out at a specified interval.

Both of these services have a premium edition where additional features are available for a monthly fee. My comparison is for the free services only. If you are willing to pay for the premium services, you can make your own comparison. If you do, feel free to post your conclusions or observations in a comment below.

Here are the four reasons why I made the switch:

Timely allows unlimited Tweets in the buffer whereas Bufferapp limits the buffer to 10 Tweets.
Timely allows for multiple accounts and interfaces with Facebook well.
Timely gives you the option of posting to any or all of the accounts at the same time.
Timely sends me a concise weekly email summary of my activity and the performance of the tweets.

Both of these services have widgets that make it easy to use the service from within the browser of your choice. I use Chrome as my primary browser and the widgets for both services work equally well with Chrome.

To be fair, I should point out the one advantage of Bufferapp. That is that the service allows you to schedule the times of the Tweets whereas Timely only allows me to specify the number of Tweets per day.

Also with Bufferapp, if you refer friends to the service you can earn additional capacity in the Tweet buffer. But this is nullified by the fact that Timely does not have a limit.

Both services work well but because of the three items mentioned above I have a slight preference at this time for Timely.

What do you think? Are there any other buffering services I should try?

Gutenberg, Google and the Church

Posted on June 8, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 2 Comments

The Retweet

http://twitter.com/#!/coryhasabeard/status/78146081514459136

The Question

http://twitter.com/#!/uSlackr/status/78215933755273217

The Response

I’m not sure what Cory had in mind when he tweeted, but here is what his tweet made me think of.

There are those in Christendom who have an aversion or a distrust of anything new. Part of this I understand. It is easy to settle into a pattern of church life and anything that upsets that pattern can be viewed as an annoyance. There is a sense in which new things should be evaluated and not automatically accepted. Some level of distrust is healthy.

But the aversion to new things can become pathological. In many congregations a change in the order of service will prompt a flurry of notes to the pastor indicating that the old order was better.

The distrust of new things leads to some curious practices. One of my favorite church curiosities is the practice of segregating worshipers into traditional and contemporary by having separate services for each group. I know that it is OK to have preferences and traditional is not better or worse than contemporary. How does this segregation enhance overall body life? How does splitting into two groups bring unity?

My point is that change is not inherently good nor bad; change must be evaluated as to its benefit in moving the church toward her goal of making disciples (Matthew 28:19-20). It does not benefit the church to hold to old paths just because they are old and familiar.

Gutenberg could not have imagined the speed with which information can be disseminated in 2011. The internet and social media are tools which can be used to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. These new tools of communication should be used by the Church to proclaim the message. So the point I take from the tweet is that the Church should be investing in developing a web presence.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if the church had sought to work on good television programming in the 60’s and 70’s instead of decrying the “one eyed monster” or the “boob tube.” We are starting to see some well produced and well acted movies with a Christian message, what would have happened if we had started doing this 50 years ago?

The internet and social media are not going away barring major damage to our infrastructure. We, the church, need work within these systems to provide opportunity for people to hear the voice of Jesus calling them to come home.

6 Reasons for a Church to Engage via Social Media

Posted on April 5, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 2 Comments

I am a relative newbie when it comes to social media (SM). My involvement with SM came as a result of a discussion we had in an elders meeting surrounding the potential benefit of SM for the church. In November of last year, I plunged into Twitter and paid more attention to Facebook.

Since my investigation was aimed at how SM could benefit the church, I would like to offer the following thoughts as churches consider using Social Media.

There will be an increase of what some are calling “digital natives,” those who have never known a time without the internet and electronic communication. As a result, SM are the primary tools for communication for a increasing segment of the population. I was at an organizational meeting for a summer mission group recently where most of the participants agreed that Facebook was the preferred method of communication among the team.
More people prefer to have information pushed to them as opposed to having to go looking for it. Twitter and Facebook can be used to push information to users. This saves people the effort of going to a web site and looking for the information they need.
SM allow for a sense of community because they are interactive. People can post responses and engage in spontaneous conversation. We are called to build relationships with other believers and reach out to those who do not believe. SM is a tool to do this effectively.
SM can provide near real-time response to issues and questions as they arise. In our electronic society, this speed is expected.
Twitter forces brevity with its 140 character limit. Churches can get out a short message with a link to a registration form or web page if additional information in necessary. The benefit is that people don’t need to spend a lot of time wading through information that does not pertain to them.
Facebook and Twitter give the account holders control over how and when they view information. Users can set up notifications and use filters to bring specific information to their attention.

I assume that there are other benefits that I have not included here. Please comment to add other considerations (both positive and negative).

When to use the delete key

Posted on January 11, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 1 Comment

Twitter, Facebook, blogs and other communication tools enhance the speed of disseminating thoughts and information.

The question I ask myself this morning is how do I determine what is worth communicating? Is there a test which determines when the delete key should be used?

I believe that Paul gives us such a test in 1 Corinthians 13. Paul tells me that without love I am a noisy gong or clanging cymbal. Therefore, I must determine if my message conveys the love that I receive from God. If it does not, or if it is incompatible with love, then the delete key is the only remedy.

The internet is full of noise and clanging, it is my hope that I will not increase the volume.

Categories

Archives