Interesting leader in The Independent today about the Twitter phenomenon. It argues that the success of the mini-blogging site is all to do with its name.
The Indy says: "Think of the big success stories: Google, YouTube, Facebook, Skype. What do they have in common? A euphonious moniker. Being able to turn the name into a verb helps too."
To make its case it lists some of the clunky names of dot.com flops.
"DigiScents; AmCy; E-loft. Can you imagine "AmCying" someone or "E-lofting" something? But when you Twitter? Well, that really can be gold."
According to my dictionary, "twitter" is described rather lyrically as to"utter succession of light tremulous sounds". On the other hand a "twit" is a "foolish or insignificant person".
Campaign Report: 41 Days to Go
11 hours ago