In case you haven’t noticed, Twitter is becoming more and more of a media entity, both by curating and filtering the news and other content that flows through the real-time information network and also by offering to highlight content from certain providers. One of the things that most traditional and even digital-native media entities have is some kind of correction function — either a way of adding to a published piece, or posting an update to correct a fact, or in the case of newspapers and magazines a special section (often all but hidden) with corrections and retractions in it. Should Twitter have such a thing, now that so many people have come to rely on it as a news source? Craig Silverman at the Poynter Institute says yes, but Twitter says implementing such a thing would be, well… complicated.

The idea of a correction system for Twitter has been around for some time now. One of the first major incidents to trigger the debate was the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Gifford in Arizona last year: although the congresswoman was only injured by a gunman, early reports — including some that were repeated by mainstream media sources — said that she had been killed. As with other errors, like the alleged death of Canadian singer Gordon Lightfoot and other misreported celebrity deaths (including several reports involving Apple founder Steve Jobs before he actually died in October 2011), retweets of these mistakes continued to circulate widely long after they had been corrected.

Corrections are hard because Twitter is a stream

The problem with corrections or updates to earlier tweets — as anyone who has tried to correct a spelling mistake in their own tweet knows — is that all communication through Twitter is inherently asynchronous and asymmetric. We can’t really know who is seeing them and when, and unless we keep an eye on the “interactions” feed within Twitter at all times, we don’t know who is retweeting them or saving them to possibly retweet later. That’s why people refer to Twitter as a “stream” — you can’t step into it at the same place twice. So even following up a mistaken tweet with a correction doesn’t always solve the problem, and often turns into a game of Whack-A-Mole.

As Silverman — who is also the author of a recent book about media fallibility called Regret The Error (and a personal friend) — describes at Poynter, the latest suggestion for a correction feature came from digital designer Oliver Reichenstein of Information Architects, who mocked up what such a feature might look like. In his view, Twitter could implement a “strikethrough” feature via a separate button, so that instead of deleting an incorrect tweet and making it vanish (which doesn’t always prevent people from repeating it), it would be obvious to everyone that a mistake had been made.

One of the biggest strengths of this approach, as Silverman notes, is that it doesn’t try to pretend that a mistake never happened — something that both digital and print-based media outlets have been known to do. Instead, it uses the correction method that has become a standard for honorable blogs (including GigaOM) in which both the mistake and its subsequent correction are made as obvious as possible. As Reichenstein describes it in his proposal:

The only format that clearly states a mistake is a fat strike through. It is a strong answer to any interpretations and accusations that follow. It clearly says: “Don’t read this. This is all wrong. I take it back. I’m sorry.”

Does Twitter have a duty to allow corrections?

In a series of responses to this idea on Twitter, however, Twitter designer Doug Bowman said such a feature would raise a number of concerns — which is presumably why it hasn’t been implemented yet. For one thing, he said, it would add “additional complexity” as opposed to simply having a “delete” button, which might confuse users and also be complicated to implement, since it would involve going back through the timeline to find a specific tweet and update it. Bowman also said that he didn’t think it was a feature many people would actually use, and therefore it likely isn’t worth the investment of time and resources it would require.

It’s easy to see how finding and updating a single tweet out of the 250 million 400 million or so Twitter handles every day might be a challenge — something that has also likely held back the company’s search function to the point where it is often useless (although Om argues that Twitter is trying hard to change that and become more of a social-search provider). If you wanted to find and delete a tweet that is more than seven days old, for example, Twitter’s own search function would be of no use, since it only goes back about a week.

At one point, Twitter was working on something that might have provided a solution, as I mentioned when this issue came up early last year in the wake of a bogus shooting incident in Oxford Circus in London: the company was experimenting with what it called “annotations” — a feature that would allow metadata about a tweet, such as tags or other information, to be included as a “payload” without affecting the length of the message. Theoretically this might have allowed for easier updating or correcting of tweets, but as far as I know the feature has never been implemented.

Does it even matter whether incorrect tweets are corrected visibly, if they are eventually updated or corrected by further tweets? Or should we just embrace the idea of a stream, and count on the truth to eventually come out, whether an individual tweet ever gets corrected or not? I tend to agree with Silverman that a correction feature would be useful — and not just for journalists or others who want to be conscientious about their mistakes, but also because it would help Twitter live up to its emerging status as a media entity. Whether it wants to do that or not remains to be seen.

Post and thumbnail images courtesy of Flickr users Florian Boyd and Rosaura Ochoa

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How Media Companies Can Compete Online
• Twitter Annotations and the Future of the Semantic Web
• The 2013 task management tools market

If I had it to do it over again, here are the things I would have done differently.

1. I would have avoided the billable-hour trap. I have no doubt, if I had things to do over again, I would have created more automated and group-centric sources of income from the very start. I would not have made one-on-one services such a big part of my revenue. I think setting a business up that way limits how far you can go and eventually burns you out. On top of that, in many cases, you can provide the same services that you would provide one-on-one in other ways and reach the same result. For example, instead of provide one-on-one consulting or coaching, you could provide a group program or membership site.
2. I would have set up and maintained a steady content stream. No matter what the business, online or brick-and-mortar, creating online content is a great way to promote it and generate leads. Every single contact and client who has found me over the past few years has done so through content I’ve created online. Just a few days ago, in fact, someone contacted me and mentioned articles I had written several years ago, so that content is still serving me today.
3. I would have found a balance between creating content around “my voice” and “guest voices.” It hasn’t been until this most recent year that I’ve seen the real value in balancing my own voice with those of people who share similar views and goals. Each of us has something unique to offer in the way of creating content: Our voices (our unique way of putting things and relating to others), as well as our unique blend of experiences and expertise. By bringing other voices to the table, you have greater depth and more to offer. You also get the added benefit of a connection with the other expert, which has so much potential — joint ventures, partnerships, referral relationships, extra promotion, cheerleaders for your business, and much more.
4. I would have set some boundaries for myself and my business. I would have decided from the very beginning where I was going to draw the line with clients and other service providers so that I didn’t set myself up to be taken advantage of and to be a doormat. Knowing what I know now and knowing how this can actually equate to greater success and more opportunities, I would have been less prone to take any and every job or client that came my way.
5. I would have worried more about passion than profit (knowing now that the money will follow) Now I can see that when I’m connected to a bigger purpose for my life and business, things just begin falling into place and synchronizing, so if I had to do it over again, I wouldn’t chase down opportunities strictly for financial reasons. I would be much more interested in following an intention for my business and allowing the money to follow.

The mistakes I’ve made over time have led me to where I am today. I wouldn’t change those things, but if I wanted to start a new business, I would apply the lessons I’ve learned so that I could save myself those missteps from earlier days.

If you had it to do over, what would you do differently in your business?  What lessons learned the hard way would you apply to a new business today?

Photo by Flickr user Corey Leopold, licensed under CC 2.0

Most business experts believe that if you don’t fail, it means you’re not pushing yourself hard enough or taking enough risks. Thomas Edison said this about failure: “I haven’t failed, I’ve found 10,000 ways that don’t work.” He saw mistakes as a step toward to a solution.

In this “Tips from the Trenches” post, some experts share some of the mistakes that they’ve made, and what they’ve learned from them.

@marketingprofs — Ann Handley

Early on in my career: Getting to be best buddies with people I was supervising. Until I had to let one of them go. THAT was a lesson. I work to keep better boundaries with folks who report to me by acting more like a resource for them, and not just a pal.

This is also a reason why it can be tricky promoting someone within a team to become the manager. It’s difficult to transition from colleague to boss.

@journalistics — Jeremy Porter

I quit my first job with no regard for relationships. Never burn bridges. All your relationships should be for the long haul.

We’ve all been in situations that left us seething, and let our primitive fight-or-flight response take over. You never know who you will encounter again. Even if you don’t meet them again, those people might talk about your burning bridges to future prospects. Word of mouth is powerful and spreads fast.

@BridgetForney — Bridget Forney

Not everyone is a teacher. Find the ones who are willing to guide you and listen carefully.

We sometimes land in situations where we report to people who teach us nothing new, or don’t have good management skills. Rather than drifting along until that next job or gig, do what you can to keep learning and receiving guidance so you can be ready for the next step.

@rupertmike — Mike Rupert

No one will give you anything unless you ask, take or make for yourself. I waited too long for instructions.

If you find yourself sitting there, go do something. This is your opportunity to show initiative.

@JGoldsborough — Justin Goldsborough

There’s never just one answer or one perspective.

You could do the same two projects for two different companies and work them in very different ways because of the people involved.

@stoweboyd — Stowe Boyd

I worked several times for people I thought were crazy or dumb before I took a job, yet I went ahead and took it anyway. It turned out to be true every time leading to wasted years. Never again.

Many folks rely on gut instincts often because they turn out to be right. So if you get a gut feeling about new projects, clients and other situations, pay heed. I had a bad feeling about a prospective client, so I checked in with a colleague who had worked with her. It turned out those feelings were on target, so I passed on the gig.

@cheeky_geeky — Mark D. Drapeau

Not allowing my entrepreneurial spirit to come out early enough. (Of course, I’m still young!)

Mark provides a classic example of “hindsight is 20/20.” All you can do is the best you can with what you have. Pushing yourself, however, could help you discover uncharted waters.

What mistakes have you made and what did you learn from them?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Personal tools lead to practical business
• Flash analysis: lessons from Solyndra’s fall
• Millennials in the enterprise, part 1: strategies for supporting the new digital workforce

We have just raised $4.5 million, led by new investor Alloy Ventures, an early-stage venture capital firm with over $1 billion under management. True Ventures, our primary investors thus far, also participated in the round. The round was blessed by our angel investors, Rakesh Mathur, Venky Harinarayan and Anand Rajaraman as well. As part of the funding, Alloy Ventures general partner Ammar Hanafi will join the Giga Omni Media board.

We are going to use this new investment prudently, to enhance our technology platform and content offerings, add to our current portfolio of publications and expand our Events and Briefings businesses. We are in investing for the long-term — in ourselves.

I got to know Ammar when he was heading up corporate business development at Cisco Systems (read: V-P of the merger & acquisitions business.) As part of my job as a telecom reporter for Red Herring, I would hound him for information, often when there was none to be had. We stayed in touch periodically as our careers progressed before eventually losing touch.

Then earlier this summer, we reconnected through CEO Paul Walborsky. Our conversation quickly turned once again to my quest for clear and accurate information, but this time in relation to how I had made it the core quality around which our online media company was built. Soon we were discussing the possibility of Alloy becoming an investor.

The shift of audiences and ad dollars to online media from more traditional mediums has been significant on many levels, not least of which has been how it’s created opportunities for new models such as ours. What hasn’t changed is a desire on the part of business and technology audiences for in-depth, insightful coverage, which is what we are committed to providing.

Macro trends of our industry aside, the reason Alloy Ventures and True Ventures invested in our company is because there are lots of little things that need to happen before crazy ideas become a living, growing business. Sure we didn’t have an auspicious start to 2008, but we together overcame that little hiccup and my team has achieved a huge amount this year, among them:

• We are now providing content to a number of prominent media sites, including CNNMoney.com, Businessweek.com and NYTimes.com.
• We hosted two sold-out conferences, Structure and Mobilize. (And we are getting ready for NewTeeVee Live for 2008.)
• We acquired jkOntheRun.
• We acquired TheAppleBlog.
• We appointed Paul Walborsky CEO of the company.
• We named Carolyn Pritchard as the managing editor of our network. Our network now has seven sites: GigaOM, WebWorkerDaily, NewTeeVee, OStatic, Earth2Tech, jkOnTheRun and TheAppleBlog.
• We have doubled the number of visitors to our sites. We launched two experiments –- NewTeeVee Station and GigaOM Daily.

As the company grows, I try to reflect on the job done so far and the road ahead. We have come so far on so little, mostly by being frugal and having a realist’s view of the world. The whiplash-inducing bad winds that are plaguing the overall economy will cast a pall on Silicon Valley in general and online media as well. So it’s nice to have the ability to grow even in the face of adversity, whether organically or through acquisitions. Before I go back to work, please join me in welcoming Ammar to our family.

More importantly, dear readers, please accept my extreme gratitude for your support — through good times and bad times, for without you it would not have been possible. Thank you.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Flash analysis: lessons from Solyndra’s fall
• GigaOM Research highs and lows from CES 2013
• How HR can make the case for workforce analytics

Two of them were already working at other jobs, but I was not willing to spend our tight budget on salaries from day one. I figured I could get their attention by offering to split the company between us. Three of them accepted: two were really close friends from high school who had worked together previously on a few websites. The third is a university classmate who I figured would help me with my workload. This is where I made my 2nd mistake.

I was able to convince each person to come work with me on the startup in exchange for 24% of the company. I like involving people in the things I do (2 heads are better than 1!) so at first I was OK with our “28%, 24%, 24%, 24%”-agreement. I thought I had listened to the right people… so off we went! This is where I made my 3rd mistake.

By June/July we were working in the garage of one of our cofounders. Within a few months we were facing some challenges. We got along great, but I felt that I was unable to have a strong enough voice in any part of the decisions, even though I was the father of the idea! My word was not carrying enough weight in part because of my own inexperience, which me feel that everyone knew better than me. So this is when I started to get really paranoid. (Paranoia usually comes into effect when someone starts feeling uncomfortable or insecure).

About the same time a friend at a VC firm introduced me to a new mentor: a 30-year-old with vast internet experience, but most importantly a guy who had “been around the block” and with whom I could really relate on my many levels. One day I spoke with my mentor about how the company was divided up. He immediately started to ask me the type of questions that make you think.

I realized the mistake I had made when dividing the company — I had started a democracy. I began to understand that this conflict could mean my idea might die before it even got off the ground! I feared that if I them of my concerns, my friends/co-founders would flip out and I might lose their friendship. But I understood that I myself was the one that had to feel the most comfortable, or the project would not survive.

After much thought, I presented my teammates with the idea that I was not comfortable with how the company had been divided and that the situation made it difficult for me to impose my wishes on this project. Without a doubt, this confrontation was the hardest issue I had dealt with in my life. I was extremely distraught and even a month later I could not eat or sleep well, not to mention work well.

To make a long story short, we lost one of our co-founders and I lost one of my best friends — a guy whom I counted on when my father passed away, my wingman for the nightclubs. In less than a year I went from promising him that we would “make it” to not even talking to him. Maybe this all a bit overboard but I finally understand that an entrepreneur’s emotions’ are a rollercoaster ride.

I made several mistakes in my decisions about how to build my team of startup founders. But this is what life is about, learning about your past mistakes so that they don’t get repeated.

As a fellow entrepreneur just remember the following:

1. Stay away from working with friends. I cannot stress how big of a mistake this is!!! I know that everyone says this but I did it and assume that others might be tempted to but DO NOT! Even though you share everything with them and feel extremely comfortable, you can always go to them for advice but remember that companies will come and go, your friends will always have your back.
2. Get advice from everyone, don’t only listen to a family friend, ask a teacher, as a fellow worker, ask your dog but do not go with only one piece of advice.
3. Surround yourself with people who have been around the block like I did with my first mentor, we were able to bond and speak frankly; if it had not been for his questioning I have no idea where I would be today. Always ask them questions!
4. Do not let things drag on, if you feel uncomfortable with a decision that even you yourself made, talk about it with your co-founder immediately and see how things can be resolved.
5. As the primary founder you better have an authoritarian role in the start-up process, this might sound harsh but if you had the idea of the project, then you are the one that should take the final decisions but of course ALWAYS take into consideration what your teammates have told you (this is one of the reasons why working with friends is hard… it is not the easiest to disagree with them)!

Nathan Schorr is the founder of Blahsports, a social content network focused on sports.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Crowdfunding’s rapid growth and future opportunity
• 12 tech leaders’ resolutions for 2012
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution

The package is called Sharpening Your Skills: Starting a Business. Sub-links to the essays follow, with additional F|R pieces that address the same topics.

1) Ownership and change of control: Rich or Royal: What Do Founders Want?
See also F|R’s:
Do you Want to be Rich or Be the King?
My Case Against Venture Capital.

2) Striving for profits: Turning High Potential into Real Reward.
See also:
The Margin Manifesto Part I The Margin Manifesto Part II.

3) Resource management: How Can Start-Ups Grow?

F|R, on bootstrapping and economizing:
Startup Math: 1 + 1 = 1/2
How to Bootstrap Your Startup.

4) Legal sand traps: : Top Ten Legal Mistakes Made by Entrepreneurs.
See also:
Question of the Day: Boiler Plate NDAs and Non-competes
The Dangers of Moonlighting
Patents, Why Bother?
Question of the Day: Self-Patenting.

Do you have suggestions for how to address issues like change of control, profits, legal pitfalls and resource management? If so, share them with us!

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• GigaOM Research highs and lows from CES 2013
• How HR can make the case for workforce analytics
• The 2013 task management tools market