Over on Twitter, there’s some new options to mark one’s account as a “professional” account. You can read more about that at
Introducing Twitter for Professionals. I think they’re kinda starting to try something like the difference between personal accounts and pages on Fb.
Honestly, it seems mostly an attempt on their part to sell more ads and get people to promote tweets more, neither of which I’m interested in.
But there might be some features that I’d find useful for the library. One of the “advanced profile” features is the newsletter thing that already appears on my profile anyway, if taking a look via web or iOS. So, maybe there’s not much point in it, since I’m already getting that.
I mean, yeah, I guess I’ve got a professional account. Kind of a brand, kind of a creator. I don’t know which for sure, but probably more of a professional creator, yeah? I mostly tweet as the Librarian instead of the Library, tbh; so it’s kind of a “Librarian of Hermetic Library” instead of a more proper “Hermetic Library” brand account would be. At least, it’s been more and more the former over the years, though I originally was thinking it would remain more the latter.
All in all, the account is for something that is more of a vocation than a profession, I suppose.
But, if the library account were a “professional” account what the heck “industry” would it be? Education? Entertainment? Other? Over on Fb, I have the page for the Library listed as Website, but that doesn’t appear to be an option.
There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of “book” or “library” related industry categories available, so the taxonomy is pretty limited. (A taxonomy geared more toward the industries that they care to exploit and extort for cash?)
“Entertainment” might be a way to go. Although, you know, based on my analytics, I’m not sure I’m exactly entertaining enough to be entertainment. Bwahahah *cough* yeah.
I’m having an existential crisis over here! Okay, not really, but it is a conundrum.
“Other” would probably the most technically accurate out of the options, tbh. But also not a lot of taxonomical synergy or opportunity there to be had, I suspect.
Welp, it’s a thing I’m thinking about this week and I’ll think some more on’t.