I like the idea of a service where I get updated on the interesting things my friends are up to in real-time.
I was a big fan of Dodgeball, a service in which you “check in” via your phone with a text message that maps you to a location such as a music venue, bar or restaurant. Then it notifies your friends where you’re at. Useful and effective. They later added a “shout out” feature to send messages to your friends that weren’t location-specific. It was smart for letting your friends know where you’re going before you get there. Google bought Dodgeball in May 2005 and development seemed to go dry. It must have been frustrating. The founders of Dodgeball left Google in April 2007.
Meanwhile, Twitter launched in October 2006 as a service that I thought did less than Dodgeball. You could answer whatever you wanted to the question “What are you doing?” I was initially skeptical of the open-ended nature of this question but little did I know what it’d become! Worried about the signal to noise ratio, I couldn’t help to bring it up when I was interviewed on Future Tense about what Twitter is in March 2007:
…some people will continue to post stuff about, you know, “I’m feeding my cat” or “I’m driving to work.” And a lot of other people end up realizing, maybe I should only publish the stuff that somebody might actually be interested in. And those are the kinds of people I love subscribing to, because they realize “I have an audience here, so I’m just going to publish stuff people might have a bit of interest in.” I tend to not watch the people who end up talking about their commute every morning.”
Little did I realize that more and more people would use Twitter in ways that actually ignores the question “What are you doing?” Also, I was used to Dodgeball, a service that told me directly where people were at and little more.
I’m generally a fan of using an infrastructure of a service in a way that is beyond it’s intention when the results are good. For example, notifying people of emergencies or tragedy is a useful mis-use of Twitter. Unfortunately most of the alternative uses of Twitter, in my strong opinion, take away from the service more they give.
The Chatters
When someone tells you what they’re doing many times there’s an undeniable urge to respond to it. In principle this is a good thing and Twitter gave us the perfect method to handle it with a direct message. I’d argue that this feature hasn’t been used that much and historically most people post replies to other people’s messages as a public message. In other words, instead of telling their friends what they are doing, they send out a message to their followers that’s a reply to someone else they are following. For everyone that receives this when they don’t follow the person they’re replying to, they’re essentially receiving noise. Most everyone who has been on Twitter for awhile has gotten messages like this — the ones where you ask yourself, “what the heck are they talking about?”
As far as I am aware it was was a combination of people not knowing the direct message feature and people wanting to reply publicly that caused the format of the public reply to be more or less standardized as “@username.” Twitter recognized the issue of public replies without context so they gave Twitter the functionality to recognize the @reply notation causing your Twitter message, when viewed from the website, to link back to the user you they are replying to. A good idea but I think it reinforced the wrong mindset: it takes away from answering “What are you doing?”.
Note that it was after people starting using the @reply notation that Twitter developed a system to formally support it.
When people choose to reply publicly to people instead of direct message these days, I don’t think there is generally much thought by most users of how it’s received by people that didn’t see the context of what they were sending. I won’t blame Twitter’s users for this though as this is Twitter’s fault.
I think that by adding the @reply-recognizing functionality, Twitter intentionally or not started to strongly encourage the use of public replies. A couple months ago I got more ammo for my argument that Twitter prefers that people use public replies opposed to a private direct message regardless of the content of the message because they did one more simple “upgrade”: the reply button. Well, the reply button by itself isn’t proof but it was their choice on what the button does. Instead of plopping in the notation for sending a direct message to your friend it forces a public reply. Why would Twitter create a “reply” button that sends a public message instead of a direct, private reply?
Anyone who’s been on Twitter more than a year has noticed it’s a lot more “chatty” and contains less broadcasting what people are doing. Unfortunately, people that have joined Twitter in the last six months or less don’t know Twitter any other way and likely consider this type of chatter normal.
Sidenotes: UPOC is a service I’ve used for over five years and it’s perfect for SMS chat with multiple people. Same with AIM, Meebo and Jabber clients if you’re sitting at a computer. Why not use this for chat? I also think that Quotably, a service that tries to piece together Twitter conversations via the @reply notation is pretty humorous.
The Link Aggregators
The link aggregators are people that treat Twitter like a link blog in a manner similar to del.icio.us or Tumblr or those who use Twitter as a means of syndicating links to their own content. They’re the people that instead of answering “What are you doing?” are pushing URLs. Why would I want to get links sent to me this way? I subscribe to your feeds, add you as a friend on del.icio.us and follow you on Tumblr so I can find out the latest stuff you’re reading and linking to. I subscribe to your Twitter feed because I want to find out what you’re doing right now, not because I need aggregation in multiple places.
I want to arm wrestle Alex King for creating Twitter Tools for WordPress. That plug-in, when used to automatically post a URL to Twitter on your behalf every single time you create a new blog post is one of the most annoying things on Twitter. Especially because like many people that use Twitter, I use an RSS reader to read blogs. I don’t use Twitter to get notifications of when to go to your website every single time it’s updated. I was joking with Ed Kohler last week about Twitter and he was quick to jab that he is “not down with people who Tweet under the assumption that everyone is sitting at their desk and interested in being carpet bombed with URLs.”
It’s frustrating that it’s been generally accepted now that this kind of use of Twitter is okay. Just tell me what you’re up to on Twitter and I’ll read about your links and blogs on your websites.
The Platform of Whatever-The-Heck-We-Want
This is the miscellaneous category I guess. It’s the folks that use Twitter to relay what other people are saying, to organize “wars”, live blog events, make jokes and one-liners, give weather reports, greet their followers every morning or to complain about the day of the week and their commute. Either way, they’re not telling me anything interesting about what they’re doing.
I use Twitter because I want to know what you’re doing!
There are quite a few people that I have stopped following because of one one of the three reasons above. I like these people but we don’t use Twitter the same way.
Twitter In My Perfect World
For the last time, I like the idea of a service where I get updated on the interesting things my friends are up to in real-time.
Without getting too granular and without imposing any rules whatsoever (although I do find the Ten Commandments hilarious and accurate), I think having a simple preference that suppresses Twitter messages that contain @reply and URLs would do the trick. I ask, if you’ve already read this far, spend a minute and think of the ramifications if people used a feature like this and what it would mean for the future of Twitter. I think it’s really quite positive. Twitter already recognizes to a point the importance of something like this as they suppress messages containing the @reply notation when updating your Facebook status on Twitter’s own Facebook application.
…or perhaps more realistically…
Remove that text from Twitter that says in big letters, “What are you doing?”
Just leave the blank text box. Let’s be honest here: it would make it more clear as to what Twitter really is and at the same time admits the kind of medium Twitter’s become (or perhaps always was). It’s truly a 140 character blank slate of whatever you want to put in it regardless of my perceived signal to noise ratio.
It would stop me from being a Twitter purist and I’ll go somewhere else.
I just want a service that lets me know what my friends are doing.
UPDATE: Sara points out that Twitter recently added the ability to block messages with the @reply notation. That helps, and I flipped that switch on my account just now.
UPDATE 27 Mar 08: This exploded into a pretty good conversation about what Twitter is and is not and how people don’t agree on it at all (and should they?). I had a ton of good conversations in person, via IM and email about this in the last 48 hours in addition to the comments. For kicks I’m going to flip-flop and treat Twitter as the free-for-all service it’s become. I started following all the people I said I stopped followed. I’ve changed my habits a bit to go along with what’s perceived as the mainstream. We’ll see how it goes. I’ll probably write something in April about it but I’ll probably talk more about what I really would love as a next-generation service, which Twitter wasn’t, isn’t and probably won’t ever be.
Comments 36
Agreed.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 11:04 ¶I’m much more of a consumer than anything else when it comes to Twitter, and really, the reply stuff doesn’t bother me especially since replies to people I’m not following are automatically filtered from my main feed. If my friends are talking to each other, I might want in on the conversation (sometimes anyway).
There is a noise problem with certain users, though. I think if you post several times in sequence in what boils down to having a conversation with yourself, or a lengthy monologue that you need to break down into 140-character bites, you might need to ask yourself if you’re providing enjoyment for your friends or not. The thing is, I don’t like the option of not following you — I follow you for a reason, because I like most of what you have to say. Just curious, if anything, if such a person might enjoy Twitter as much if 10-20 of their friends started doing the same thing. I think it would get overwhelming fast.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 11:12 ¶Cranky pants!
Seriously, if Dodgeball didn’t exist (and it pretty much doesn’t) this post wouldn’t exist. Twitter is successful for all the reasons you don’t like it.
If I actually had to trudge through everyone literally answering the question “What are you doing?”… man, I’d be outta there so fast.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 11:24 ¶Finding value vs creating value. It sounds like you have a good feel for what you find valuable. I, like you, think many Twitter users could do a better job thinking about whether they’re creating value with their tweets.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 11:26 ¶Oops! Since I was involved in 5/7 of the Twitters in your photo I thought I’d respond quickly.
I actually agree, and I keep my contacts on Twitter pretty small so sometimes I forget that people have a ton of contacts and get a ton of unnecessary updates.
One reason I use the @username function sometimes instead of the direct message option is simply because when I’m updating from my phone I don’t know the shortcut for the direct messages. (All right, I just looked it up and it’s more memorable than I though, I will use that instead)
I also found that you can change your @reply settings.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 11:34 ¶Sara- I wasn’t trying to single you out… it just happened to be the screen I saw last night and I was like, “I’m taking a photo of this tomorrow, it’s perfect.”
The @reply settings - what the heck, how did I miss that… did it just launch? That’s a halfway decent answer to a bunch of my post.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 11:41 ¶Great post.
I think I remember you once saying that Twitter shouldn’t be used to say what you want to say, but what you think other people might want to hear. I wish it was like that again, but unfortunately it never will.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 11:42 ¶Because of many of the same reasons you’ve listed, I have turned off IM updates for several people that I follow, and have made a very conscious effort to limit my own non-valuable contributions.
I was definitely guilty of being a “Chatter” for a while. The intention behind Twitter got away from me as more people joined and the goal went from tweeting the interesting thing I’m doing right now to just whatever funny (or unfunny) thing might come to mind. But it clouds the waters.
As I read up on these comments and also turn off my reply notifications (thanks for the fyi!), I check out my timeline; out of all the updates on the first page of my web timeline there are four I still get to my IM. Several quotes from Happy Gilmore in the course of a few minutes is not my cup of tea.
When I check Twitter from my phone, while I’m out and about, I am looking at my web timeline and because my phone browser only allows me to see about 6 updates per page, it’s really frustrating flipping through several pages of updates that I don’t find useful while looking for the ones that tell me what “you”‘re doing right now. Because I might want to join “you”!
So, I might just start unfollowing people and I really didn’t want to do that because I like everyone I follow. But like Aaron said, we just don’t use Twitter the same way (anymore).
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 12:04 ¶(I should clarify too that I’ve been guilty of almost everything I listed above as well… I’m certainly not above it.)
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 12:05 ¶Aaron,
OT: Which RSS reader do you use?
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 13:18 ¶Paul- I used to use Shrook, I’ve tried Google Reader a few times and now I’m addicted to Vienna. I’ve been using Vienna now for a long time and I love it.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 13:23 ¶I thought the all @replies thing only went into effect a month ago or whenever it was they added the option to filter your @replies, and that initially the way it worked was you’d only see the @reply messages from people you follow if you also follow the person they’re replying to.
Makes sense to me in that it lends context to the reply. Even if the reply is not to me, I probably saw the related tweets. Maybe people I know and like have interesting things to say on the same subject at the same time.
This blows up exponentially the more people you follow, since it’s likely that they’re following each other as well, so it can get messy.
Important thing is it’s a tool and people use the tool the way it works for them. Which isn’t always going to be the way it was “intended” to be used.
I also get the impression the way people use Twitter (and what value they find in it) changes depending on how many followers they have as well. If you have 1000 people hanging on your every Tweet, you’ll have better luck using it as lazy web.
I’m not a fan of auto-posting anything from anywhere into Twitter, but sometimes I get excited about something I blogged and I want to tell people about it. I stop following some people’s Twitter because I’ll see it on their blog. I’ll stop reading some people’s blogs because I know they’ll tell me about the best stuff on Twitter. Everyone’s different; adjust accordingly.
I think it’s unrealistic to get a really high signal-to-noise ratio. Even just in reading someone’s blog, there’s gonna be some good posts and some shitty ones. Even in following someone who Twitters infrequently, there’s gonna be some good tweets and some shitty ones.
But clearly you’re a purist and where you find value in it is different from where others find value in it. Fair enough.
That’s partly why I stopped using Dodgeball. I thought people “abused” the shout-out feature and, ironically, that it looked too much like Twitter.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 13:32 ¶“Even in following someone who Twitters infrequently, there’s gonna be some good tweets and some shitty ones.”
This is part of the reason why I’ve decided it’s time to change the way I use Twitter. There shouldn’t be any “shitty” Tweets. They should be neutral. Where am I going? What am I doing? Will I be there long? Am I inviting others to join me?
Anything else will get dumped into my GTalk notifier, blog or into the ether.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 14:26 ¶Aaron, Aaron, Aaron.
Yes, it’s good that you know what you’re looking for. And some of this advice is good. But it’s also overly restrictive, and I hope you don’t expect people to follow your overly narrow rules.
Your most recent Tweets refer to people I don’t know: Mary, Ed Zamora, Margaret, Ian, etc. However, I’m not going to make up a rule that I will only follow people that tweet about people I know. Those tweets provide no value to me at all, but I’ll keep following you because sometimes it’s interesting to know where you are and what you’re up to.
Frankly, I *wish* you’d post links to your blog post, like this one! No links? What kind of rule is “no links”? That’s the worst rule I’ve ever heard on the intarwebs. I agree with you on the automatic blog link business, but I don’t really use RSS. I find out interesting things when people twitter about them and link to them.
Twitter has become much more interesting than just “What are you doing?” Thank God.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 14:28 ¶I believe a lot of frustration here could be curtailed by adding direct message content to everyone’s “recent” timeline. (maybe you mentioned this). They do it for SMS.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 14:30 ¶@chuck, I’m surprised that someone disagreed with the all mighty Aaron Landry. I was beginning to believe that everyone that reads this blog was as big of a pompous and self righteous jackass as Aaron’s Intarweb presence makes him out to be.
@aaron, thanks for another long and pretentious post about why you are right and everyone else is just going about their lives without consulting you on how they should be handling the Intarwebz2.0. I am going back to send some tweets of URLz and make certain that everyone knows to stay away from this post.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 14:37 ¶ZOMG laughing so hard right now.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 14:43 ¶I think when people started using twitter like upoc, I started to get a little irritated, and I thought that a tweet informing me of a new blog post would send me over the edge, but now that people can have twitter automatically post all their tweets to their blog once a day makes me want to set things on fire.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 14:52 ¶The trifecta of tweeting blog posts, blogging tweets, and duplicating tweets in blog posts (separate from the daily summary) makes me feel more than a little too in touch with people.
Aaron, I hope you do good things with your newly acquired “all mighty” status. That’s powerful responsibility right there.
To some of what Chuck was saying, I agree to some extent that I want to know what people are doing and what they’re up to, even if it means I don’t know so-n-so or can’t join, but the amount of tweets that I used to receive was incredible, and sometimes stressful enough to just turn off IM updates. I was being flooded and I wasn’t finding value in enough of them.
Like Erica said, some of us will find value where others don’t.
It would be easier (in a perfect world) if Twitter were more customizable as to the kind of updates you could elect to receive, and then allows you to label or tag the type of update you’re about to put out. Links, jokes, live-tweeting an event, or the “what am I doing?” kind of tweet, and then let everyone else figure out what they want.
The “rules” are narrow, but there’s little to no filter available, so it’s essentially a free-for-all, and sometimes that’s too much.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 14:54 ¶@Ang (Sorry, couldn’t resist) - I agree completely. I would LOVE to preface certain tweets with #local for example, or #livetweet. Let people decide what they want to “subscribe” to. Right now it’s all or nothing.
But it’s also simple, and simplicity is one reason why Twitter is so successful. It’s also why my blogging has been largely replaced by Twitter and Flickr.
I will now bow down and wait for Almighty Aaron to smite me.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 15:02 ¶I’d like to replace where I said “some good tweets and some shitty ones” with “some tweets you’re interested in and some you’re not.”
You as the reader determine what’s interesting. Not the person writing. The stuff I might tweet about Minneapolis could be what other Twin Citizens find most interesting from me, but other people who don’t live here wouldn’t.
If you think you should only post when you have pearls of wisdom or comedy gold then… I don’t even know what to say to that.
Like Chuck said, there’s no rules and little ability to filter. So if you have to be super selective about who you follow to make it worthwhile for you, go for it.
I couldn’t decide if this comment added value to the conversation, but I posted it anyway.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 15:15 ¶Thanks for all the good comments. To respond to one of them, Rex said: “Twitter is successful for all the reasons you don’t like it.”
You’re probably right. What is “successful” anyway?
But yes, you’re probably right.
Rex also said: “If I actually had to trudge through everyone literally answering the question ‘What are you doing?’… man, I’d be outta there so fast.”
This goes to my last point: why don’t they just take off the words “What are you doing?”? Should I just buck up and realize that Twitter isn’t the service it was, it’s not the service as it’s presented and it’s this undefined animal as to which I need to realize isn’t going to deliver what I want it to? I’m not opposed to that. Maybe I just need to soak that in.
To respond to a few others, as I mentioned above, I don’t want to impose any rules whatsoever. This is more of a commentary about how deceptive the service is when looking at how it’s advertised versus the free-for-all it’s become (and how I want the former).
There are a lot of people that are very divided on this issue.
Good conversation, all.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 15:16 ¶I only found out about and read this post because Chuck Twittered it. I agree with most of his opinions; different strokes for different folks.
The web evolves as do the tools. I’ve always believed that to be a good thing.
I’ve been as guilty as most for the rule infractions you speak of, but I keep the number of posts down to avoid a high noise level.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 15:29 ¶Holy jeebus, there were 12 comments when I started mine; get called away by the boss only to find out Aaron has been dubbed “all mighty” when I return.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 15:43 ¶Another point that I really left out of my post was the emergence of games on Twitter. I think we’re seeing only the very beginning of it. I always thought that Least Dangerous Game was a great idea because you can follow it when you’re playing, stop following it when you’re not and it doesn’t force you to send messages to play. I think it’s a smart way to have a game using Twitter.
Unfortunately, I’m scared that the new games around the Color Wars and stuff like Tweet Potato are going to be quite a bit different.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 16:19 ¶I kinda dig the public “noise”. I tend to find some interesting people to follow that way.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 16:52 ¶I’m too busy laughing about the almighty Aaron and his pompous intarwebs posts to form an opinion. Maybe I’ll twitter it.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 16:55 ¶Kidding…
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 17:00 ¶I’ve unfollowed — or at least turned off notifications for — several people for so many of the above reasons. And I will also cop to being guilty of a lot of these sins, particularly when I first started using it.
Here are my personal rules of thumb:
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 17:25 ¶-A couple, maybe 4 or 5 tweets a day, maximum. Better to have them ask, “Where is this guy?” than “Will this guy please shut up?”
-Ask yourself, is what I’m about to tweet of interest to more than a couple of people who follow me?
-Is this turning into a public conversation that would be better suited for IM?
-Are you tweeting from the bathroom? Approved.
Great post, Aaron. Weighing in with my perspective as a complementary viewpoint…
I only saw this b/c @chuckumentary tweeted it. This is because my RSS reader is chock full, and I rely on Twitter for little pings when bloggers whom I really like update their blogs. Maybe that makes me a lazy fan of those blogs, and that’s probably true.
I’ve been using Twitter for over a year now and am still trying to figure out my own personal rules. I was telling @herb the other day that I assume I have four groups of Twitter followers in no particular order: 1) readers of my music blog, 2) really close friends, 3) people from Minneapolis geography I may or may not know, including @s4xton, and 4) people interested in my day job of social media marketing.
So I assume when I tweet something, I’m letting down 3/4 of my readership every time. That really bugged me for like 10 minutes. Then I decided the following: Screw all of them. I’m sure most of the newer users of Twitter agree.
I will say I’ve met and made friends with more than 30 people IRL and networked IRL with double that thanks to Twitter, which is more than MySpace, Facebook and LinkedIn’s grand total of ZERO.
So Twitter wins, regardless of the fact that @solace and @alexisthegirl stopped following me during SXSW because of my crazy social media tweets. I’m okay with that. I can earn them back. And if I don’t, I won’t lose sleep. I have 464 other followers anyway (holy crap that’s way too many, I know).
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 21:20 ¶My thoughts:
- Chatting is ok for 2 replies. Then it’s time to take to direct message.
- Blog post notifications are appropriate based on the blog. I don’t automatically post hiptop3.com blog posts on my twitter because I know not many people on my list are interested in them. But I usually feel like most people would be interested in the stuff that I post on geeked.info, and I post infrequently enough that it’s not annoying as hell. 2-3 blog posts notifications a day are too many.
There is a lot of noise on Twitter, that’s what it’s become based on the users using it. It’s up to individual users to decide how much of that noise they want to let through. I do wish that Twitter had some sort of filtering method. That way I could tag different messages that people may not want to hear. i.e. New Blog Post, What I had for Breakfast, Cool URL, etc.
Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 23:51 ¶This feels like a continuation of a conversation we had at The Bulldog after the final Chasing Windmills shoot after Alexis Twittered that she couldn’t make it. I thought the “What are you doing?” question was something of a vanity deal back then, and I still kinda do. At the very least, it provides very little value for me.
I’d rather find out from my friends what they’re doing in advance, so I can plan to go with them. Otherwise I’m more interested in the trivia that comes through, the occasional interesting URL, the bizarre commentary, etc. I enjoy the liveblogging by @perfectporridge from SXSW and other random observations from the few I follow. And if I’m out doing something, I probably already invited everyone I wanted to, and I just don’t see why anyone else would care about my whereabouts.
Bottom line, I’m with Rex. I’d find Twitter largely useless if Twitter was used for its original purpose. That said, there are definitely those who push the platform in directions that frustrate me. Luckily, as Aaron has said (and done!), you can just stop following those folks. Or, since I primarily use Twitter as a mobile app, just turn off SMS updates for them.
Posted 26 Mar 2008 at 05:30 ¶As a newbie of Twitter, all of 5 or 6 days now, this is a good read for me to keep in perspective what some folks may or may not want to know about my little world.
Posted 26 Mar 2008 at 20:54 ¶&This is why I only communicate through postcards. Or smoke signals.
Posted 27 Mar 2008 at 06:21 ¶This exploded into a pretty good conversation about what Twitter is and is not and how people don’t agree on it at all (and should they?). I had a ton of good conversations in person, via IM and email about this in the last 48 hours in addition to the comments. For kicks I’m going to flip-flop and treat Twitter as the free-for-all service it’s become. I started following all the people I said I stopped followed. I’ve changed my habits a bit to go along with what’s perceived as the mainstream. We’ll see how it goes. I’ll probably write something in April about it but I’ll probably talk more about what I really would love as a next-generation service, which Twitter wasn’t, isn’t and probably won’t ever be.
Posted 27 Mar 2008 at 17:04 ¶Just throwing it in there that I found this post (and discussion) from a tweet by @idoNotes today. Great value to me personally. Probably helped that the tweet said he was currently reading this post. Subtle difference, but effective.
Posted 09 May 2008 at 13:24 ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 5
[...] Aaron Landry » Twitter’s Deception [...]
[...] van Buren forwarded me a link to this guy’s Twitter skepticism. What’s interesting that his issues and mine seem to be equal and opposite. He thinks people [...]
[...] Aaron Landry: Twitter’s Deception After starting to use twitter (a micro-blogging site that allows people to write small messages [...]
[...] Local blogger Aaron Landry posts about “Twitter in [his] perfect world.” [...]
[...] 2002. Nowadays, in addition to his pizza and cat blogging, Aaron is knee-deep in social media. From Twitter to Facebook and Flickr and the Creative Commons, Aaron is using them [...]
Post a Comment