I’ve written about how I use Twitter - and how I view it.

In a nutshell, I see it as the online equivalent of a coffee-room in the cardiac surgical operating suite - a place where you relax in between work, chat and catch up with news by talking briefly to a group of people.

In the coffee-room, I find myself talking to 4 kinds of people:

- those I already know
- those who share similar interests
- those whom I can help
- those who can help me

If there are others in the room, I might chat with them on occasion when I have free time, there’s no one else to talk to, and I’m in the mood to explore new relationships.

Otherwise, I’d rather ignore them - and sit quietly with a cup of tea… and think!

And that’s how I intend to use Twitter, going forward. Because Twitter, in many ways, is a social microcosm very similar to the coffee-room environment.

Let’s take a hypothetical friend of mine named JohnDoe.

If I walk into the coffee-room and see John sitting by himself, I’d very likely step over and talk to him. We’d share some gossip and news, plan something to do, catch up with what’s happening in our lives and generally pass the time happily until either (or both) had to leave.

But what if the coffee-room has 20 other people, 19 of whom know JohnDoe and are his friends?

I couldn’t possibly walk up to him, cut into his conversation, and start talking to him about something else - even if I’m his good friend.

If I had something interesting/important to tell John, I’d probably call out across the room (the Twitter equivalent of an @JohnDoe message): “John, how about tennis this Friday?”

He’d look up, reply with a quick: “Sure, see you there!”

And I’d leave, hoping to see him on Friday.

But what if there were not just 20, but ONE HUNDRED people in the room… and ALL were friends of JohnDoe, and all are trying to talk to him at the same time.

Even if I shouted out loud, the chance of my grabbing John’s attention for long enough to get my message across is very slim. My voice gets drowned out in the noise.

Let’s port this scenario to Twitter.

JohnDoe has few followers, and I’m one of them. We enjoy conversations.

After a while, JohnDoe gets many new followers. I can still get his attention with an @JohnDoe message - but that’s it.

In time, JohnDoe is overwhelmed with followers - or he has drastically cut down on the time he spends on Twitter. This means he is no longer able to service his following - and I can no longer reach him, even with @JohnDoe posts, or through Direct Messaging.

JohnDoe’s Twitter-verse got too crowded for meaningful 2-way communication to be possible.

And that changed reality is what forced me to revise my Twitter strategy.

I enjoy building relationships online.

I use social media and digital communication for this purpose.

Almost everything I do online is related to my efforts to spread congenital heart defects awareness and helping unfortunate children born with heart defects.

So I use Twitter to build relationships with specific groups of people.

1 - those I already know (from elsewhere on the Web, or offline)

2 - those who share similar interests and values (mainly a desire to help less fortunate people)

3 - those whom I can help (like my list members, clients and contacts from other forums and social networks)

4 - those who can help me (in spreading congenital heart defects awareness)

In other words, if you are a part of my Twitter universe, you matter to me.

And if I am a part of your Twitterverse, I expect that I should matter to you.

In case I don’t, there isn’t much point in our being on each others’ Twitter networks, really, is there?

That’s why my revised Twitter strategy includes UN-following everyone who did not fit into one of these 4 groups.

And why I will be VERY picky about who gets added in the future.

After all, I only have limited time to spend in this online coffee-room - and I want the biggest impact from my social media networking on Twitter!