On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Andrew Badera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > define huge. > > I'm not famous, but have almost 2000 followers.
How did you accumulate this number? How many of them already knew you? How many people did you follow (without taking away subsequent "unfollows")? Amir > > early adopters probably have an easier time accruing large numbers of > followers, as do celebrities, but fame is certainly not a requirement. > > > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Amir Michail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Stut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > On 9 Dec 2008, at 18:04, Amir Michail wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM, jstrellner >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> To me, this sounds like MLM, based off of twitter, just slightly >> >>> modified. If you want to go this route, why not just say, "if you >> >>> follow me, I'll follow you and we'll both get higher numbers. Maybe >> >>> you'll like what I have to say too." >> >> >> >> How do you do this without spamming a huge number of people? Why do >> >> you think many people would look at your twitter page to read such a >> >> message? >> > >> > In my experience the best way to get new followers is not to ask for >> > them, either directly or through using any service with the sole >> > purpose of allowing you to pimp yourself as worth following. If you're >> > worth following people will follow. It's then up to you whether you >> > reciprocate or not. Personally I look their last few pages and base my >> > decision on that. If I'm not interested in that then there's no value >> > in my following them. >> >> How many people has this worked for? From what I understand, people >> with a huge number of followers on twitter were already famous before >> using twitter. >> >> Amir >> >> > >> > But that's just the way I see it. >> > >> > -Stut >> > >> > -- >> > http://stut.net/ >> > http://twitter.com/stut >> > >> >>> >> >>> Honestly though, this completely misses the whole point of Twitter. >> >>> >> >>> On Dec 8, 7:51 pm, "Amir Michail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Waitman Gobble >> >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Well, if you're like me you don't really need any cheerleaders to >> >>>>> fluff you up and get you going. I mean they're nice and all, but >> >>>>> stubborn persistence regardless. >> >>>> >> >>>>> And besides, we'd not have much of this stuff if it weren't for >> >>>>> some >> >>>>> renegades with stubborn idears. You know, the Internet Cowboys. >> >>>>> Guys >> >>>>> who would crowbar their ways onto the rooftops of bank hi-rises >> >>>>> just >> >>>>> to set up satellite dishes and offer wireless internet when most >> >>>>> people never even heard of broadband. Or rent a back hoe and chaw >> >>>>> through public streets without permit to run copper. Back in the >> >>>>> 1990's. Those types. Where would we be now? >> >>>> >> >>>>> The thing I'm missing in your proposal - I can't see the nookie. I >> >>>>> mean, are users getting a higher quality of selection of tweets >> >>>>> because you do the Turing exam? Or are they going to get more >> >>>>> followers because you have a pool of twitters at the other end >> >>>>> waiting >> >>>>> for them? (because of the quality of feed). >> >>>> >> >>>> Suppose you have two twitter users who are each working on a web 2.0 >> >>>> startup and would like to increase the number of their twitter >> >>>> followers to better their chances of startup success. >> >>>> >> >>>> They could go to this service to increase their followers. >> >>>> >> >>>> So in using this service, they find each other. Even though they >> >>>> don't necessarily want to increase the number of people they follow, >> >>>> they might discover cool tweets that they would like to see anyway. >> >>>> >> >>>> And so they end up following each other, even though it was not >> >>>> their >> >>>> intent to follow more people. >> >>>> >> >>>> Amir >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> Not cutting, just trying to understand. >> >>>> >> >>>>> Waitman >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Dec 8, 7:11 pm, "Amir Michail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Waitman Gobble >> >>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>>>>> ... >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Anyways, back to the original topic. >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> I don't understand WHERE these "Them" are going to submit. (re: >> >>>>>>> original post). I guess that's what I'm missing. >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Waitman >> >>>> >> >>>>>> At the service using the twitter API that I'm thinking of >> >>>>>> building. I >> >>>>>> didn't realize this idea was so difficult to understand though. >> >>>>>> Maybe >> >>>>>> I shouldn't even try... >> >>>> >> >>>>>> Amir >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> On Dec 8, 5:54 pm, Cameron Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> It's because people who are new, or considered new due to few >> >>>>>>>> posts, are >> >>>>>>>> automatically put in the moderation queue. >> >>>>>>>> spam, which I'm sure >> >>>> >> >>>>>> --http://b4utweet.comhttp://chatbotgame.comhttp://numbrosia.comhttp >> >>>>>> ://t... >> >>>> >> >>>> --http://b4utweet.comhttp://chatbotgame.comhttp:// >> >>>> numbrosia.comhttp://twitter.com/amichail >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> http://b4utweet.com >> >> http://chatbotgame.com >> >> http://numbrosia.com >> >> http://twitter.com/amichail >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> http://b4utweet.com >> http://chatbotgame.com >> http://numbrosia.com >> http://twitter.com/amichail > > > > > -- http://b4utweet.com http://chatbotgame.com http://numbrosia.com http://twitter.com/amichail
