@smokey thanks - you’re too kind!

@smokey 🙌⭐

@smokey Looking good! And I second @vasta: I love the camera icon for photo links. I’ve been working on a short week-in-review summary, too, and the <280 constraint has been surprisingly tough. (I may just split it into two, each with slightly different foci…)

@seishonagon It was a really striking shot 👍

@vasta I can’t take credit for the camera emoji; @johnjohnston used it last week in his recap and I thought it was a good way to link to photo posts without using too many characters. Glad you enjoyed the list!

@simonwoods Thanks, Simon!

@rnv Thanks! As I said to Sameer, credit for the camera idea goes to @johnjohnston.

I’ve found myself lots of times in the middle of a fight between the idea that we’re blogging and a blog post ought to be complete and travel together, on the one hand, and the fact that people don’t tend to follow links to original posts and want to see everything in 280 characters in the Timeline, which calls for splitting an argument or thought into a series of 280-character bits, on the other hand.

If you have slightly different foci for the parts, there’s at least a logical reason supporting division.

@smokey For longer replies, I’ve been writing titleless posts to my microblog then linking to them in a short reply on the discussion thread. That seems to have worked fairly well so far.

@smokey nice

@adamprocter Glad you liked it, Adam :-)

@Bruce Yeah, I think for existing conversations where participants are already invested in the subject what you’ve been doing works well.

My grumbling was more about initial posts, and in particular where you have >280 and <~512-1024 characters worth to say about a given subject…it’s too long for a single inline micropost, but maybe not really “long enough” for a traditional blog post, but “part 2” also has an important point that you don’t want to get lost being an elipsis+domain name link…there we tend to default to 2 separate posts, so both on this platform and on your blog, the 2 parts are disconnected from each other, forever, and discussion may also be fragmented between the separate parts, rather than looking at the argument as a whole…. (Or, in this specific case, your “weekly review“ is half a weekly review + another half a weekly review….)