31

Noisy, in a way, that he always post on Facebook or Twitter anything he did like it is his diary, always commenting other people's posts, retweets every minute or hour, etc. An attention whore or something. Is there a specific word for this kind of personality?

By the way, I didn't mean nosy or nosey.

  • 14
    Attention whore or validation seeker is what comes to mind for me as well. I'd like to hear a more 'formal' word, though. – Othya Jul 20 '15 at 18:35
  • 5
    I'd call him "unfriended". – Hot Licks Jul 20 '15 at 20:21
  • 4
    @Mari-LouA No, I think he means noisy. It's not about having your nose in other people's business, but about constantly writing stuff—the Internet equivalent to a real chatterbox who never stops talking. That kind of noisy, – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jul 20 '15 at 21:19
  • 2
    I think I was the only one who thought there might be a misunderstanding :) – Mari-Lou A Jul 21 '15 at 8:01
  • 3
    i like this question because it sounds like the setup to a joke. "I don't know, what DO you call a person who is two noisy on the internet? :D" – undergroundmonorail Jul 21 '15 at 22:35

14 Answers 14

25

Potentially an oversharer, but the word often means sharing details about your life that are either embarrassing to you or discomfiting to others.

overshare -

to disclose too much (personal information) or too many (details) about oneself

It does not, alas, mean that guy that just has to share his 2 cents about everything.

  • I think this is the closest answer on my OP. Attention whore, social media addict, and garrulous can be considered too. – Jaeger Jay Jul 21 '15 at 15:47
  • Doesn't this word sound too technically or too "modern"? – Croll Jul 22 '15 at 17:51
  • I think this word does the best of any answers I've seen so far without seeming archaic or having unwanted connotations. Being "too modern" is an advantage IMO when the intended meaning is a modern phenomenon. As an alternative, use my answer, exhibitionist. – R.. Jul 22 '15 at 19:36
  • 1
    The OP didn't ask about (or even mention) connotation, therefore you are wrong to argue that other answers are incorrect because of their connotation. – L0j1k Jul 22 '15 at 21:39
  • 1
    I agree on to that @L0j1k. – Jaeger Jay Jul 23 '15 at 15:24
20

An "attention whore" is a widely-used term for this, someone who must be the center of attention, and does things and causes situations which puts them in the center of attention, into the spotlight. Of course, it is not something you would say to another person, as it is considered an insult. It conveys the same meaning regardless of whether or not the person is online, and so in this way if you are seeking an exclusively-online term -- or a term which is not insulting -- this may not fit your circumstances.

  • 2
    Some people, especially those with some kind of fundamental social disorder (e.g. the classic Aspergers cases), are often unaware of the intensity of their sharing. Instead of wanting to be the centre of attention, they're oblivious to the fact that the conversation isn't necessarily about them and that sometimes it's better to keep quiet. How do you distinguish between actively seeking attention and just being socially inept? – tadman Jul 21 '15 at 17:05
  • 2
    Me personally? I take each person's behavior into consideration. It is after all a social network, and so a blanket answer here would be less than ideal. But to answer your question more broadly: If the door is red, the door is red, regardless of how it got that way. – L0j1k Jul 21 '15 at 22:09
  • 1
    This term also conveys an assumed negative attitude towards sex workers (and perhaps towards female sexuality in general), which makes it inappropriate in many contexts and arguably preferable not to use at all. – R.. Jul 22 '15 at 19:31
  • 1
    As linguists, we do not prescribe language, we describe it. – L0j1k Jul 22 '15 at 20:21
  • @L0j1k: I don't see how that response is relevant. Coverage of connotations and attitudes implied by word choice are relevant to someone seeking a word to use in speech or writing, and most importantly, mentioning them is descriptive, not prescriptive. – R.. Jul 23 '15 at 1:23
19

He may have

logorrhea

  1. pathologically incoherent, repetitious speech.
  2. incessant or compulsive talkativeness; wearisome volubility.

And if the above is tempting but not quite a perfect fit, I'd like to humbly submit the not-yet-a-real-word "blogorrhea" for your specific case.

Unfortunately of course this is a name for his condition, not for him himself.

15

You could use social media addict.

It's doesn't fit the description exactly, as a social media addict doesn't necessarily overshare publicly (eg, you can have social media addicts who are just messaging their friends, or browsing instagram).

eg.

Bob is a bit of a social media addict - he's liked twenty pictures and commented on ten of them in the last hour alone.

  • 12
    ..and they were all his own.. – user3306356 Jul 21 '15 at 8:42
  • @user3306356 forever alone. haha – Jaeger Jay Jul 24 '15 at 15:53
11

There is a punchline to a Penny Arcade comic that I think sums this up very well: A Twitter Shitter

6

How about an *E*-ttention whore?

  • 4
    And the closely related i-Diot? – WernerCD Jul 21 '15 at 12:41
  • @WernerCD e-xactly. Haha – Jaeger Jay Jul 21 '15 at 15:45
  • I think you win. – tadman Jul 21 '15 at 17:05
5

garrulous - excessively talkative, especially on trivial matters

is usually applied in spoken contexts, rather than to "non-vocal" online postings. But given OP has already used noisy himself, I think it's appropriate.

  • 1
    Seems to me that OP is specifically looking for something like "noisy" without the connotation of it being spoken. – Matthew Read Jul 21 '15 at 16:43
  • @MatthewRead Exactly. I have already explained in my OP my definition of "noisy". – Jaeger Jay Jul 22 '15 at 2:20
  • 1
    @Matthew: Until relatively recently, one of the big differences between spoken and written "conversations" was that only the former could normally take place in anything approximating real-time, but online chat facilities have changed all that. So it's now perfectly reasonable to extend words like talk, conversation and garrulous online to contexts such as a garrulous blog. – FumbleFingers Jul 22 '15 at 12:01
5

exhibitionist

A person who behaves in an extravagant way in order to attract attention

If desired you could attach an adjective [phrase] like "online", "social media", "digital", etc. to be more specific, but I don't think it's needed.

4

Although not particularly Internet related, I'd call them a

chatterbox

A person who likes to chatter.

chatter

Talk informally about unimportant matters.

  • I think this is vaguely more internet related than you might think due to I.R.C. I think chatty is also applicable, albeit not necessarily as derogatory. – Tonepoet Jul 21 '15 at 18:17
3

Lifelogging enthusiast. Was a thing before twitter/facefook, albeit non-public.

1

All the actions of person revolve around seeking attention, so

attention seeker

  • I presume attention seeker and attention whore are synonymous. – Jaeger Jay Jul 23 '15 at 13:11
1

vain, adjective –MW

4 : having or showing undue or excessive pride in one's appearance or achievements

Anyone who feels the need to update their status for the world at large is vain. They probably also think this song is about them.

  • One up for the song reference -- though it's stuck in my head now... – W9WBH Jul 31 '15 at 8:17
0

A very active (or overactive) user is what I would call them.
A troll would be someone who posts comments to things ad nauseum and out of spite.

  • 7
    I don't think troll is a good word here. Trolls may sometimes be attention seekers, but often being a troll is associated with doing something that seems earnest, but is actually not (often to provoke infuriating reactions, etc.) There are trolls who post very little and whom are rather quiet online, for example. – Othya Jul 20 '15 at 18:37
  • @Othya This does not say that troll is the correct word, but rather that the correct word is not troll because "a troll would be someone who post[s] comments ... out of spite." – Blubberguy22 Jul 20 '15 at 19:16
  • @Blubberguy22 I disagree with your reading, but even if so -- why mention it? There is a virtually limitless number of words that are not correct here, and the OP does not mention "troll". – Matthew Read Jul 21 '15 at 16:45
  • @MatthewRead I agree with you there, "troll" is indeed irrelevant. – Blubberguy22 Jul 21 '15 at 17:11
-1

Itchy-fingers sounds appropriate Just like some of the above suggestions this is also not formal English as such

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.