Ok, so the folks at Pear Analytics did an analysis of 2,000 tweets from the public timeline (in English and in the US) over a 2-week period from 11:00a to 5:00p (CST) dividing them into 6 categories.  They found that the largest percentage of tweets were “pointless babble,” 40.55% of the total tweets captured.  “Conversational was a very close second at 37.55%, and Pass-Along Value was third (albeit a distant third) at 8.7% of the tweets captured.”
Read more about the results at the site, and download the full whitepaper here.
But while I can’t go so far as to say I am “irritated” by such studies as Hugh McGuire does in an August 16th posting, I do agree when he says,

Every time someone complains about Twitter, or microblogging, blogging, the Web or anything else being overrun with “useless” information, I always have the same reaction: you could say the same thing about talking, but no one ever questions whether talking is useful or not.
So, how did this happen? At first, I levitra sales simply could not understand it. Digestive enzyme production tends to decline as we age. tadalafil overnight The energy flows cialis 20mg tadalafil in the body in direct. There are many companies working in this sector and this is an opportunity for pastilla levitra 10mg you to shop around to find one selling goods most likely to tempt your visitors. These are means of communication, used by humans to communicate, each with their own idiosyncrasies, but all driven by the same impulses that have always driven humans to communicate: the urge to connect, to find, to babble, to sell, to buy, to share, to romance, to complain, etc etc etc…

Twitter, or microblogging in general, will bring profound changes to some of its users (it has for me) in how they find/consume/interact with information and other people. As did the printing press, papyrus, the ballpoint pen, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, email, blogs, youtube, mobile phone, among others.
The interesting question is how these things change our informational and social interactions; but the question of whether or not these “new” tools are “good” or “valuable” are moot.