[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
Well said Shannon. -- Kevin Mesiab CEO, Mesiab Labs L.L.C. http://twitter.com/kmesiab http://mesiablabs.com http://retweet.com
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
Here also lies an ongoing issue I see repeated over and over with regard to all social applications (but especially Twitter) - the assumption that how the author uses the tool is how and why everyone uses that tool. ie not all Twitter accounts are used to follow others actively - but in somecases autofollow is needed (a business app account using DM's to control the app for example - or just a business wanting DM's as a way for direct input from customers. Some of these accounts might then also use who they follow monitor conversations (but most would likely use the wider net of Twitter search) And not all accounts need to be about outbound updates - some (likely many I suspect) are used mostly to follow a few key (for that person) accounts - could be friends could just be celebrities. My point is that the beauty of open, flexible social apps is that there is not a "right" way to use them nor do all users have to use them in the same way or for the same reasons. I do not think there should be caps on following (or on unfollowing). I know I frequently don't follow anyone back forany days then when I have an hour or so go through my new followers and see who if anyone I want to follow. Likewise while I occasionally unfollow someone my bursts of unfollow activity (rarer) have occurred again when I had time and went through who I was following to pare things back a bit. Shannon (now back to my wrestling with Oauth and which API's to use for my new project) Sent from my iPhone On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Kevin Mesiab wrote: > And here lies the slippery slope. > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM, owkaye wrote: > > > If users paid due diligence to those they follow and only > > followed those people who demonstrate some value to them, > > follower churn would not exist. Period. > > Obviously they won't so maybe it's time to deal with reality > rather than dreaming of a perfect world. > > Owkaye > > > > > -- > Kevin Mesiab > CEO, Mesiab Labs L.L.C. > http://twitter.com/kmesiab > http://mesiablabs.com > http://retweet.com
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
I never said you did unfollows. Rather, I pointed out that tweetlater uses Twitter's follow limit as a guidepost for your bulk auto follow and bulk auto return follow features. That's fine. But I then found it odd that that you would say "Amen" when someone said that Twitter shouldn't publish their unfollow limit because "naughties" would use it. To me, at least, I don't see much difference between using a known unfollow limit versus using a known follow limit, which you are apparently doing. If I was to use your bulk auto return follow, I am probably going to end up with a significant proportion of spammers as friends. To then implicitly claim that the process of weeding out those spammers is the "churn" part, and that the initial blind auto follow isn't part of it... that just strikes me as silly. I imagine (hope) that Twitter has more sophistication in suspensions. On Aug 11, 4:42 am, Dewald Pretorius wrote: > On Aug 11, 3:11 am, TFT Media wrote: > > > For its auto-follow, tweetlater.com specifically states: "[w]e have > > limits in place to ensure that your daily following remains well > > within the limits imposed by Twitter." So you are presumably touching > > the rate limit then going back -1, -2, -3, or whatever. > > You pulled that snippet from my feature that finds potential new > friends based on user-selected keywords. That snippet simply means > that the user can pause that feature when her account reaches the > point where she would not be able to follow more people anyway. And > no, my system absolutely does NOT then unfollow to "make room for > more". > > Here is what I very publicly said about bulk unfollow: > > http://bit.ly/JM3as > > Dewald
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
I agree my comparison to dictatorships is a stretch, but I was in a poetic mood and trying to emphasize the point that clarity is better than ambiguity. Twitter is obviously doing a tremendous job dealing with their explosive growth and dynamic nature of this new medium they've created. That said, capricious rules are also clearly as much an obstacle to growth as the problems (ie, spam) they are intended to prevent. When considerable investments in accounts are nullified in the blink of an eye by suspensions for which no notice, reason, or remediation is offered, entrepreneurs, marketers, investors, and individuals that could be great assets to the community lose faith and trust in continuing to be part of it. > The issue is a quick follow and then unfollowing if not reciprocated. Would be very helpful to know the definition of "quick" as relates to following churn suspensions. As far as how general "bulk unfollow" relates to the type of patterned unfollowing that constitutes "following churn": If a user is inspired by Scoble's post to wipe their friends list clean the same week they have added hundreds of followers, it is unclear if they risk suspension? Seems such a sequence lead to suspension of a friend's account (though of course one does not receive any feedback on the exact reason for suspension and she may not be interpreting the situation correctly.)
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
Owkaye > > > > Would be very helpful to know the definition of > > > > "quick" as relates to following churn suspensions. > > > > > > As Cameron pointed out earlier, as soon as they do > > > that, the following churners will adjust their > > > methods to be just inside that definition of OK. > > > > This seems like a really short-sighted reason for NOT > > clarifying what's acceptable and what's not. > > The alternative is considerably more restrictive limits > that globally apply so that any value up to the mythical > X has little repercussion ... Well at least it's fair to everyone EQUALLY instead of possibly being prejudice against certain users.
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
I have no problems debating with you, if you can keep your facts straight. Or rather, if you bother getting the facts in the first place. Dewald On Aug 11, 2:09 pm, TFT Media wrote: > I never said that your system does unfollow. I point out that > tweetlater does bulk auto follow and bulk auto return follow, and you > do so using Twitter's follow limits as a guidepost. That's fine. But > I thought it a bit funny how you then write "Amen" when someone said > that if Twitter published how many you could unfollow in a day that > the "naughties" would go -1 on that. It seems to me that's pretty > close to what you're doing with your bulk auto follow feature. > > For you to categorically state, as you apparently do, that unfollow is > churn, while things like your auto follow are not, is just silly. If > I was to use your return follow feature and follow everyone who > follows me first, I am probably going to end up with a bunch of > spammers. But apparently if I then choose to weed out those spammers > then it is THAT which is the churn? > > I think there is far more nuance and sophistication (or at least I > hope so) with Twitter's suspension system then to view only one side > of the equation as the culprit in suspensions. > > On Aug 11, 4:42 am, Dewald Pretorius wrote: > > > On Aug 11, 3:11 am, TFT Media wrote: > > > > For its auto-follow, tweetlater.com specifically states: "[w]e have > > > limits in place to ensure that your daily following remains well > > > within the limits imposed by Twitter." So you are presumably touching > > > the rate limit then going back -1, -2, -3, or whatever. > > > You pulled that snippet from my feature that finds potential new > > friends based on user-selected keywords. That snippet simply means > > that the user can pause that feature when her account reaches the > > point where she would not be able to follow more people anyway. And > > no, my system absolutely does NOT then unfollow to "make room for > > more". > > > Here is what I very publicly said about bulk unfollow: > > >http://bit.ly/JM3as > > > Dewald
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
I never said that your system does unfollow. I point out that tweetlater does bulk auto follow and bulk auto return follow, and you do so using Twitter's follow limits as a guidepost. That's fine. But I thought it a bit funny how you then write "Amen" when someone said that if Twitter published how many you could unfollow in a day that the "naughties" would go -1 on that. It seems to me that's pretty close to what you're doing with your bulk auto follow feature. For you to categorically state, as you apparently do, that unfollow is churn, while things like your auto follow are not, is just silly. If I was to use your return follow feature and follow everyone who follows me first, I am probably going to end up with a bunch of spammers. But apparently if I then choose to weed out those spammers then it is THAT which is the churn? I think there is far more nuance and sophistication (or at least I hope so) with Twitter's suspension system then to view only one side of the equation as the culprit in suspensions. On Aug 11, 4:42 am, Dewald Pretorius wrote: > On Aug 11, 3:11 am, TFT Media wrote: > > > For its auto-follow, tweetlater.com specifically states: "[w]e have > > limits in place to ensure that your daily following remains well > > within the limits imposed by Twitter." So you are presumably touching > > the rate limit then going back -1, -2, -3, or whatever. > > You pulled that snippet from my feature that finds potential new > friends based on user-selected keywords. That snippet simply means > that the user can pause that feature when her account reaches the > point where she would not be able to follow more people anyway. And > no, my system absolutely does NOT then unfollow to "make room for > more". > > Here is what I very publicly said about bulk unfollow: > > http://bit.ly/JM3as > > Dewald
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
> > > Would be very helpful to know the definition of "quick" > > > as relates to following churn suspensions. > > > > As Cameron pointed out earlier, as soon as they do that, > > the following churners will adjust their methods to be > > just inside that definition of OK. > > This seems like a really short-sighted reason for NOT > clarifying what's acceptable and what's not. The alternative is considerably more restrictive limits that globally apply so that any value up to the mythical X has little repercussion (right now the X is probably high enough that tons of people doing (X-1) is probably just as bad if not worse, and publishing the limit makes it possible for more people to do just that). There is some argument to support such a clampdown, but I'd rather have things dealt with on a case-by-case business. -- personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com -- PRIVACY. IT'S EVERYONE'S BUSINESS. -- Evil, Inc. ---
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
And if followed by an obvious spammer should we not block them and then let Twitter make it clear to other users how many times they've blocked. A few black marks against a spammer and they won't get followed back anymore. This is like the feedback rating in ebay it encourages you to behave yourself. I agree with Kevin, this should be a human solution. I feel that a policy of banning people who Twitter thinks are spammers because of a metric rather than users who have my realistic reasons is a dangerous precendence and just causes grief and anguish. Let people self police in the first instance and then correct the exception circumstances. But hey it's your show ;-) just trying to give constructive feedback. Seriously I can understand the temptation to automate but this is a slippery slope indeed. ATB Neil On 11 Aug 2009, at 19:36, Kevin Mesiab wrote: Step 1.) turn off email notifications (legitimat, but easily mitigated problem). Step 2.) getting spammed? Unfollow that user (question why you followed them in the first place). On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Kevin Mesiab wrote: And here lies the slippery slope. On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM, owkaye wrote: > If users paid due diligence to those they follow and only > followed those people who demonstrate some value to them, > follower churn would not exist. Period. Obviously they won't so maybe it's time to deal with reality rather than dreaming of a perfect world. Owkaye -- Kevin Mesiab CEO, Mesiab Labs L.L.C. http://twitter.com/kmesiab http://mesiablabs.com http://retweet.com -- Kevin Mesiab CEO, Mesiab Labs L.L.C. http://twitter.com/kmesiab http://mesiablabs.com http://retweet.com
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
Step 1.) turn off email notifications (legitimat, but easily mitigated problem).Step 2.) getting spammed? Unfollow that user (question why you followed them in the first place). On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Kevin Mesiab wrote: > And here lies the slippery slope. > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM, owkaye wrote: > >> >> > If users paid due diligence to those they follow and only >> > followed those people who demonstrate some value to them, >> > follower churn would not exist. Period. >> >> Obviously they won't so maybe it's time to deal with reality >> rather than dreaming of a perfect world. >> >> Owkaye >> >> > > > -- > Kevin Mesiab > CEO, Mesiab Labs L.L.C. > http://twitter.com/kmesiab > http://mesiablabs.com > http://retweet.com > -- Kevin Mesiab CEO, Mesiab Labs L.L.C. http://twitter.com/kmesiab http://mesiablabs.com http://retweet.com
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
And here lies the slippery slope. On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM, owkaye wrote: > > > If users paid due diligence to those they follow and only > > followed those people who demonstrate some value to them, > > follower churn would not exist. Period. > > Obviously they won't so maybe it's time to deal with reality > rather than dreaming of a perfect world. > > Owkaye > > -- Kevin Mesiab CEO, Mesiab Labs L.L.C. http://twitter.com/kmesiab http://mesiablabs.com http://retweet.com
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
> If users paid due diligence to those they follow and only > followed those people who demonstrate some value to them, > follower churn would not exist. Period. Obviously they won't so maybe it's time to deal with reality rather than dreaming of a perfect world. Owkaye
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
Follower churn wouldn't exist, but getting hundreds of spam emails (about being followed) would still exist. I've got over 12,000 emails in my inbox about being followed on Twitter. Dozens of those are from the same users. Some weeks the same users unfollow and refollow me nonstop to try to get me to fall for it. I don't. I've got only ~2000 followers because most of them were just spammers churning through trying to follow me. Its annoying. Yes, many users fall for it. Many big users auto-follow back because they want the numbers (don't tell me everyone that Scoble followed back initially was a real user). I personally don't think you should be able to follow more than 25 people per day, but that's just me. -david On Aug 11, 1:55 pm, Kevin Mesiab wrote: > This entire debate focuses on the wrong side of the coin. > Follow churn exists as a side effect of the improper Twitter culture of > reciprocating follows blindly. > > If users paid due diligence to those they follow and only followed those > people who demonstrate some value to them, follower churn would not exist. > Period. > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:51 AM, owkaye wrote: > > > > > Would be very helpful to know the definition of "quick" > > > > as relates to following churn suspensions. > > > > As Cameron pointed out earlier, as soon as they do that, > > > the following churners will adjust their methods to be > > > just inside that definition of OK. > > > This seems like a really short-sighted reason for NOT > > clarifying what's acceptable and what's not. > > > If it's acceptable then who cares if the churners adjust > > their methods? At least everyone will know how to avoid > > problems for a change, right? > > -- > Kevin Mesiab > CEO, Mesiab Labs > L.L.C.http://twitter.com/kmesiabhttp://mesiablabs.comhttp://retweet.com
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
And a 'X people blocked this person' next to their details in the follows notification would help to identify which are spammers. ATB Neil On 11 Aug 2009, at 18:55, Kevin Mesiab wrote: This entire debate focuses on the wrong side of the coin. Follow churn exists as a side effect of the improper Twitter culture of reciprocating follows blindly. If users paid due diligence to those they follow and only followed those people who demonstrate some value to them, follower churn would not exist. Period. On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:51 AM, owkaye wrote: > > Would be very helpful to know the definition of "quick" > > as relates to following churn suspensions. > > As Cameron pointed out earlier, as soon as they do that, > the following churners will adjust their methods to be > just inside that definition of OK. This seems like a really short-sighted reason for NOT clarifying what's acceptable and what's not. If it's acceptable then who cares if the churners adjust their methods? At least everyone will know how to avoid problems for a change, right? -- Kevin Mesiab CEO, Mesiab Labs L.L.C. http://twitter.com/kmesiab http://mesiablabs.com http://retweet.com
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
This entire debate focuses on the wrong side of the coin. Follow churn exists as a side effect of the improper Twitter culture of reciprocating follows blindly. If users paid due diligence to those they follow and only followed those people who demonstrate some value to them, follower churn would not exist. Period. On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:51 AM, owkaye wrote: > > > > Would be very helpful to know the definition of "quick" > > > as relates to following churn suspensions. > > > > As Cameron pointed out earlier, as soon as they do that, > > the following churners will adjust their methods to be > > just inside that definition of OK. > > This seems like a really short-sighted reason for NOT > clarifying what's acceptable and what's not. > > If it's acceptable then who cares if the churners adjust > their methods? At least everyone will know how to avoid > problems for a change, right? > > -- Kevin Mesiab CEO, Mesiab Labs L.L.C. http://twitter.com/kmesiab http://mesiablabs.com http://retweet.com
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
> > Would be very helpful to know the definition of "quick" > > as relates to following churn suspensions. > > As Cameron pointed out earlier, as soon as they do that, > the following churners will adjust their methods to be > just inside that definition of OK. This seems like a really short-sighted reason for NOT clarifying what's acceptable and what's not. If it's acceptable then who cares if the churners adjust their methods? At least everyone will know how to avoid problems for a change, right?
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
An update on this thread: we have an inquiry out to our spam team to get more information about the metrics they use when policing mass-following/unfollowing. On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 15:12, IDOLpeeps wrote: > > Twitter recently started suspending accounts which bulk unfollow those > who don't follow back for Terms of Service Violation (see: > > http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/browse_thread/thread/1aeb1f40ff665f78/955da80afd36ca4d?lnk=gst&q=follower+churn#955da80afd36ca4d > ). > This policy has it's supporters and detractors. What it does not yet > have is specific guidance describing the specific limitations on bulk > unfollowing which, when not done for "following churn", has it's > legitimate purposes. > > Heretofore several utility applications provided a bulk unfollow > function to end users (most commonly as a method of recruiting > followers by following people in the hope they'd follow back and then > unfollowing those who didn't) and some "real" twitter users (ie, not > spammers) used this method to building their followers. As there are > still bona fide rreasons for bulk unfollowing friends, it would be > extremely helpulf if Twitter can provide more clear guidance about > what type of bulk unfollowing exactly will flag an account for > suspension? > > For example, does unfollowing several hundred friends whether they are > following an account or not constitute the type of bulk unfollowing > that will get an account suspended? Popular blogger Robert Scoble > just had a script unfollow ALL his friends (http://scobleizer.com/ > 2009/08/05/you-are-so-unfollowed/) successfully, yet a friend of mine > unfollowed all his friends and his account was suspended later that > same day. And another friend used a third party unfollow script to > get her friends number below the 2,000 limit and her account was > suspended. > > What are the specific rules regarding the type, quantity, and timing > of bulk unfollowing that will result in account suspension? It's very > difficult to manage twitter accounts with the specter of seemingly > arbitrary account suspensions looming without having more specific > guidance on how TOS are interpreted. > -- Alex Payne - Platform Lead, Twitter, Inc. http://twitter.com/al3x
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:31 PM, IDOLpeeps wrote: > Lots of community members and developers are leaving Twitter because > of what appears to them to be arbitrary suspension of accounts they've > invested considerable time and good citizenship developing only to > have them removed without notice and oppty to remedy. > I don't mean this argumentatively, but I am curious how you know this? Is it possible to quantify? Always interested in community metrics... Nick
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
On Aug 11, 11:48 am, IDOLpeeps wrote: > Would be very helpful to know the definition of "quick" as relates to > following churn suspensions. As Cameron pointed out earlier, as soon as they do that, the following churners will adjust their methods to be just inside that definition of OK. Also, I want to make clear that my personal stance on bulk unfollow is simply a reflection of how I choose to run my business, and what I believe is prudent. I know that Jesse, Paul, and other developers offer bulk unfollow. That is how they decide to run their own businesses, and I respect their decisions. Even though we are competitors in many areas, I believe there is a place in the sun for all of us. Dewald
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
I agree my comparison to dictatorships is a stretch, but I was in a poetic mood and trying to emphasize the point that clarity is better than ambiguity. Twitter is obviously doing a tremendous job dealing with their explosive growth and dynamic nature of this new medium they've created. That said, capricious rules are also clearly as much an obstacle to growth as the problems (ie, spam) they are intended to prevent. When considerable investments in accounts are nullified in the blink of an eye by suspensions for which no notice, reason, or remediation is offered, entrepreneurs, marketers, investors, and individuals that could be great assets to the community lose faith and trust in continuing to be part of it. > The issue is a quick follow and then unfollowing if not reciprocated. Would be very helpful to know the definition of "quick" as relates to following churn suspensions. As far as how general "bulk unfollow" relates to the type of patterned unfollowing that constitutes "following churn": If a user is inspired by Scoble's post to wipe their friends list clean the same week they have added hundreds of followers, it is unclear if they risk suspension? Seems such a sequence lead to suspension of a friend's account (though of course one does not receive any feedback on the exact reason for suspension and she may not be interpreting the situation correctly.)
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
David, For me it is not about regimes or dictatorships. For me it is about not giving users a tool when they cannot get any clear and authoritative guidance on safely using that tool. Some folks are charging them money for courses and ebooks that teach them how to do following churn, and they are none the wiser that it is going to get their accounts suspended. I'm not going to give them something that will accelerate them down that slippery slope. Dewald On Aug 11, 10:27 am, David Fisher wrote: > IDOLPeeps, > > I feel you're being overly alarmist and haven't painted the situation > properly. > > You can unfollow anyone you want. The issue is a quick follow and then > unfollowing if not reciprocated. You're *supposed* to follow someone > because you want to hear what they are saying, not because you want > them to hear what you say. People were churning in attempts to gather > mass numbers of followers. A lot of the MLM types did a good job at > this and soon had 20, 40, or even 60K followers. Now they are clamping > down. > > Comparing the situation/rules to communist regimes or dictatorships is > a straw man argument and uncalled for. Surely given another post or > two and this would be a comparison to Hitler, fulfilling Godwin's law > of the internetz. > > I'm speculating, but I have to wonder more about your friends that > were banned. Did they do exactly as Scoble (were they active members > for over two years and offering massive community contribution?)? Were > they following people prior to unfollowing? I know Scoble isn't going > on massive following kicks. Scoble's intentions were also made very > clear. Did your friends make their intentions clear? Had they been > following and unfollowing people a lot? > > The other day I unfollowed about 30% of the people I was following. No > ban. They aren't playing favorites. They are looking at multiple > factors. If you're acting like a spammer, then you'll be treated like > one. > > Churning and spam following is being cracked down on. Instead, grow > slowly, naturally and contribute to the community. > > -Davidhttp://WebEcologyProject.org > > On Aug 11, 8:34 am, Dewald Pretorius wrote: > > > I follow a simple principle in TweetLater. > > > Where Twitter rules are clearly spelled out, such as for spam, I give > > the users a hammer and caution them, "Carefully read the rules because > > you can drive a nail into wood, but you can also smash your thumb to a > > pulp with this thing." > > > Where Twitter rules are nebulous, such as for unfollow, I do not give > > them a tool, because they wouldn't know (and neither would I) how to > > use it properly and safely. > > > Dewald > > > On Aug 11, 8:42 am, Dewald Pretorius wrote: > > > > On Aug 11, 3:11 am, TFT Media wrote: > > > > > For its auto-follow, tweetlater.com specifically states: "[w]e have > > > > limits in place to ensure that your daily following remains well > > > > within the limits imposed by Twitter." So you are presumably touching > > > > the rate limit then going back -1, -2, -3, or whatever. > > > > You pulled that snippet from my feature that finds potential new > > > friends based on user-selected keywords. That snippet simply means > > > that the user can pause that feature when her account reaches the > > > point where she would not be able to follow more people anyway. And > > > no, my system absolutely does NOT then unfollow to "make room for > > > more". > > > > Here is what I very publicly said about bulk unfollow: > > > >http://bit.ly/JM3as > > > > Dewald
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
IDOLPeeps, I feel you're being overly alarmist and haven't painted the situation properly. You can unfollow anyone you want. The issue is a quick follow and then unfollowing if not reciprocated. You're *supposed* to follow someone because you want to hear what they are saying, not because you want them to hear what you say. People were churning in attempts to gather mass numbers of followers. A lot of the MLM types did a good job at this and soon had 20, 40, or even 60K followers. Now they are clamping down. Comparing the situation/rules to communist regimes or dictatorships is a straw man argument and uncalled for. Surely given another post or two and this would be a comparison to Hitler, fulfilling Godwin's law of the internetz. I'm speculating, but I have to wonder more about your friends that were banned. Did they do exactly as Scoble (were they active members for over two years and offering massive community contribution?)? Were they following people prior to unfollowing? I know Scoble isn't going on massive following kicks. Scoble's intentions were also made very clear. Did your friends make their intentions clear? Had they been following and unfollowing people a lot? The other day I unfollowed about 30% of the people I was following. No ban. They aren't playing favorites. They are looking at multiple factors. If you're acting like a spammer, then you'll be treated like one. Churning and spam following is being cracked down on. Instead, grow slowly, naturally and contribute to the community. -David http://WebEcologyProject.org On Aug 11, 8:34 am, Dewald Pretorius wrote: > I follow a simple principle in TweetLater. > > Where Twitter rules are clearly spelled out, such as for spam, I give > the users a hammer and caution them, "Carefully read the rules because > you can drive a nail into wood, but you can also smash your thumb to a > pulp with this thing." > > Where Twitter rules are nebulous, such as for unfollow, I do not give > them a tool, because they wouldn't know (and neither would I) how to > use it properly and safely. > > Dewald > > On Aug 11, 8:42 am, Dewald Pretorius wrote: > > > On Aug 11, 3:11 am, TFT Media wrote: > > > > For its auto-follow, tweetlater.com specifically states: "[w]e have > > > limits in place to ensure that your daily following remains well > > > within the limits imposed by Twitter." So you are presumably touching > > > the rate limit then going back -1, -2, -3, or whatever. > > > You pulled that snippet from my feature that finds potential new > > friends based on user-selected keywords. That snippet simply means > > that the user can pause that feature when her account reaches the > > point where she would not be able to follow more people anyway. And > > no, my system absolutely does NOT then unfollow to "make room for > > more". > > > Here is what I very publicly said about bulk unfollow: > > >http://bit.ly/JM3as > > > Dewald
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
I follow a simple principle in TweetLater. Where Twitter rules are clearly spelled out, such as for spam, I give the users a hammer and caution them, "Carefully read the rules because you can drive a nail into wood, but you can also smash your thumb to a pulp with this thing." Where Twitter rules are nebulous, such as for unfollow, I do not give them a tool, because they wouldn't know (and neither would I) how to use it properly and safely. Dewald On Aug 11, 8:42 am, Dewald Pretorius wrote: > On Aug 11, 3:11 am, TFT Media wrote: > > > For its auto-follow, tweetlater.com specifically states: "[w]e have > > limits in place to ensure that your daily following remains well > > within the limits imposed by Twitter." So you are presumably touching > > the rate limit then going back -1, -2, -3, or whatever. > > You pulled that snippet from my feature that finds potential new > friends based on user-selected keywords. That snippet simply means > that the user can pause that feature when her account reaches the > point where she would not be able to follow more people anyway. And > no, my system absolutely does NOT then unfollow to "make room for > more". > > Here is what I very publicly said about bulk unfollow: > > http://bit.ly/JM3as > > Dewald
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
On Aug 11, 3:11 am, TFT Media wrote: > For its auto-follow, tweetlater.com specifically states: "[w]e have > limits in place to ensure that your daily following remains well > within the limits imposed by Twitter." So you are presumably touching > the rate limit then going back -1, -2, -3, or whatever. You pulled that snippet from my feature that finds potential new friends based on user-selected keywords. That snippet simply means that the user can pause that feature when her account reaches the point where she would not be able to follow more people anyway. And no, my system absolutely does NOT then unfollow to "make room for more". Here is what I very publicly said about bulk unfollow: http://bit.ly/JM3as Dewald
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
I meant: "you are touching the FOLLOW limit then going back -1, -2, -3 or wharever." On Aug 10, 11:11 pm, TFT Media wrote: > So you are presumably touching > the rate limit then going back -1, -2, -3, or whatever.
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
Come on. For its auto-follow, tweetlater.com specifically states: "[w]e have limits in place to ensure that your daily following remains well within the limits imposed by Twitter." So you are presumably touching the rate limit then going back -1, -2, -3, or whatever. How is that different than determining the more nebulous unfollow limit and then unfollowing up to that? I don't see the difference. Look, the fact is that either auto-unfollow OR auto-follow can be spammy OR not spammy. If I set up a rule to automatically unfollow anyone who tweets a particular spam word, or an obscenity, etc, is that "churn"? Of course not. But if I setup an auto-follow to, say, follow everyone, up to the follow limit, who tweets "#followfriday", is that not churn? Probably it is. After all, the churn factor consists of BOTH mass-follow AND mass-unfollow, not just one. It's specious to categorically state that all auto-unfollow is "churn". That's just not so, particularly in the emerging world where spammers setup seemingly legit accounts for days/weeks before resorting to spam. If anything, auto-unfollow seems LESS spammy than auto-follow. (As for reading one's tweet stream, I'm not sure how you are doing that with the 12,000+ people that you are following!) On Aug 10, 8:04 pm, Dewald Pretorius wrote: > On Aug 10, 8:15 pm, Cameron Kaiser wrote: > > > As soon as you do that, the naughties will set up their software to do just > > that, -1, to keep them just under the limit. > > Amen. > > Besides, I wish people would realize that Twitter is actually about > what you can learn from the people you follow. It is not about what > you can blast out over the megaphone to those who follow you. > > At least, that is how I understand the power and the original > intention behind Twitter. > > Have you read your own tweet stream today? > > Dewald
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
> As soon as you do that, the naughties will set up their software to do just > that, -1, to keep them just under the limit. That would be fine since anything under the limit is, by definition, not "naughty". A fundamental principal of well ordered societies is having transparent rules. Imagine the US Code (law) was not published and citizens didn't know what specifically was legal and illegal. What kind of society would we be living in? Communist USSR? Iran? North Korea? Lots of community members and developers are leaving Twitter because of what appears to them to be arbitrary suspension of accounts they've invested considerable time and good citizenship developing only to have them removed without notice and oppty to remedy.
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
what is troublesome about your post is that you highlight the possible favoritism that Twitter has. Could you provide some details on the number of followers your friends unfollowed when they got suspended, and what method they used to do the unfollow? It looks like Scoble unfollowed 106,000 people, and I would imagine your friends did less, so it would be good to know why the rules seem inconsistent for famous people. That is what I would like clarification on from Twitter. On Aug 10, 4:12 pm, IDOLpeeps wrote: > Twitter recently started suspending accounts which bulk unfollow those > who don't follow back for Terms of Service Violation > (see:http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/browse_thread...). > This policy has it's supporters and detractors. What it does not yet > have is specific guidance describing the specific limitations on bulk > unfollowing which, when not done for "following churn", has it's > legitimate purposes. > > Heretofore several utility applications provided a bulk unfollow > function to end users (most commonly as a method of recruiting > followers by following people in the hope they'd follow back and then > unfollowing those who didn't) and some "real" twitter users (ie, not > spammers) used this method to building their followers. As there are > still bona fide rreasons for bulk unfollowing friends, it would be > extremely helpulf if Twitter can provide more clear guidance about > what type of bulk unfollowing exactly will flag an account for > suspension? > > For example, does unfollowing several hundred friends whether they are > following an account or not constitute the type of bulk unfollowing > that will get an account suspended? Popular blogger Robert Scoble > just had a script unfollow ALL his friends (http://scobleizer.com/ > 2009/08/05/you-are-so-unfollowed/) successfully, yet a friend of mine > unfollowed all his friends and his account was suspended later that > same day. And another friend used a third party unfollow script to > get her friends number below the 2,000 limit and her account was > suspended. > > What are the specific rules regarding the type, quantity, and timing > of bulk unfollowing that will result in account suspension? It's very > difficult to manage twitter accounts with the specter of seemingly > arbitrary account suspensions looming without having more specific > guidance on how TOS are interpreted.
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
On Aug 10, 8:15 pm, Cameron Kaiser wrote: > As soon as you do that, the naughties will set up their software to do just > that, -1, to keep them just under the limit. Amen. Besides, I wish people would realize that Twitter is actually about what you can learn from the people you follow. It is not about what you can blast out over the megaphone to those who follow you. At least, that is how I understand the power and the original intention behind Twitter. Have you read your own tweet stream today? Dewald
[twitter-dev] Re: Following Churn: Specific guidance needed
> What are the specific rules regarding the type, quantity, and timing > of bulk unfollowing that will result in account suspension? It's very > difficult to manage twitter accounts with the specter of seemingly > arbitrary account suspensions looming without having more specific > guidance on how TOS are interpreted. As soon as you do that, the naughties will set up their software to do just that, -1, to keep them just under the limit. -- personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com -- You're never too old to become younger. -- Mae West
