Occassional thoughts about orienteering

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Athletes and twitter


Jan at Worldofo commented on the European Champs and part of that commentary caught my eye:

Is Twitter finally coming to elite orienteering?...I have tried to get the top runners to use Twitter before, but still only a very few have taken it up. During EOC, Eva Jurenikova (Czech Republic) and Christian Bobach (Denmark) gave us some insight into what was happening “behind the scenes”. I hope more will follow...And if you are a Top Elite Orienteer: Twitter is a good and little time-consuming way to share your thoughts with the community.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about my hope that more elite orienteers would start to use Twitter.

Hammer posted a few of his thoughts on Attackpoint (and in a discussion that has generated, to date, one response...while in the same period of time a tedious discussion of NEOC club politics genearted 34 responses!).

It surprises me a bit that orienteers don't make more use of Twitter. In general, oreinteers are technically savy. But, I wonder if what is happening is that, in general, orienteers don't appreciate the value of communication, even such simple communication as Twitter. More likely, orienteers are part of such a small community that there aren't many who would see a value in Twitter and take the time (and it isn't much) to use the tool.

PBS Mediashift has story about athletes and Twitter that might be worth a read.

posted by Michael | 4:21 PM


Not only was there only one response to my twitter posting there is only a few (2?) responses to the naming of the US ski-orienteering team posting.
Club politics (and logos) trump elite orienteering discussions!

Attackpoint discussions don't seem to generate much traction unless someone complains about transparency and process. If you posted something about the unclear process and lack of transparency in the ski O' selection, you'd probably generate some response. You'd have to support the process being unclear and not transparent by noting that this was the first you heard of it and you can't tell from the posting why the team was selected as it was.

I should point out that I'm not actually concerned about the ski O' team selection. I don't think I even looked at the discussion. I'm just pointing out that many of the high volume discussions are about processes and transparency.

Post a Comment
March 2002April 2002May 2002June 2002July 2002August 2002September 2002October 2002November 2002December 2002January 2003February 2003March 2003April 2003May 2003June 2003July 2003August 2003September 2003October 2003November 2003December 2003January 2004February 2004March 2004April 2004May 2004June 2004July 2004August 2004September 2004October 2004November 2004December 2004January 2005February 2005March 2005April 2005May 2005June 2005July 2005August 2005September 2005October 2005November 2005December 2005January 2006February 2006March 2006April 2006May 2006June 2006July 2006August 2006September 2006October 2006November 2006December 2006January 2007February 2007March 2007April 2007May 2007June 2007July 2007August 2007September 2007October 2007November 2007December 2007January 2008February 2008March 2008April 2008May 2008June 2008July 2008August 2008September 2008October 2008November 2008December 2008January 2009February 2009March 2009April 2009May 2009June 2009July 2009August 2009September 2009October 2009November 2009December 2009January 2010February 2010March 2010April 2010May 2010June 2010July 2010August 2010September 2010October 2010November 2010December 2010January 2011February 2011March 2011April 2011May 2011June 2011July 2011August 2011September 2011October 2011November 2011December 2011January 2012February 2012March 2012April 2012May 2012June 2012July 2012August 2012September 2012October 2012November 2012December 2012January 2013March 2013April 2013May 2013July 2013September 2013