Jesse, Twitter will always be between a rock and a hard place, because one can be certain that there will be folks who will find new ways to take advantage of of any change they make in their rules.
Something I have seen with TweetLater is that some people are extremely creative when it comes to abusing stuff. Trying to write code to thwart them is like chasing bats in the middle of the night with a squash racquet, while wearing a blindfold. Dewald On Jun 10, 2:53 am, Jesse Stay <jesses...@gmail.com> wrote: > The summary is > I propose that the follow limits be dependent on whether a user is following > an individual or not. It should only count against me if the user is not > following me already and I try to follow them. :-) > Jesse > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Abraham Williams <4bra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Can someone tweet a summery to @abraham? :-P > > Thanks, > > Abraham > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 00:28, Jesse Stay <jesses...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Let's discuss the follow limits. I feel, as developer of a tool that > >> allows people to auto-follow, I have a bit of insight into this. While > >> there are many, many legitimate users that auto-follow others, and have > >> good > >> reason to do so, some are using it as a way to game the system, build > >> followers quickly, break the Twitter TOS, and reduce the meaning of > >> follower > >> numbers for many other users just using the service legitimately. I see > >> this daily, amongst a few of my own users, and while, due to our privacy > >> policy I can't share who they are, I do have some suggestions that would > >> make the API follow limits make a little more sense. Maybe you guys can > >> provide more insight. > > >> -Currently the follow per day limit is 1,000 follows per user per day. > >> There is no limit on the number of unfollows a user can do per day (that I > >> know of), and it appears as though there is also a limit of around 10% for > >> the number of users a person can follow more than follow them back. The > >> users taking advantage of Twitter have figured this out. So here's what > >> they do: > > >> A "gamer"'s typical activity is that they will follow as many people as > >> they can - most up to the 1,000 limit they're allowed per day, until they > >> hit the ratio of 10%. The higher the follower base they gain, the longer > >> they're able to do this. They then hope a good portion of those 1,000 > >> people follow back. Those that don't use tools like mine (which weren't > >> intended to be used this way) to unfollow everyone who is not following > >> them > >> back. This is often much greater than 1,000 for the users that are really > >> good at it. The process then starts over. They'll use tools like > >> Hummingbird (Google it) and Twollo to find people and automatically go out > >> and follow them. This is why I refuse to create auto-follow filters to > >> find > >> new people on my service. It's way too spammy if you ask me. > > >> Why do they do this? 2 reasons: 1, "supposedly" having more followers > >> means more visits and clicks in whatever you're trying to promote. (I don't > >> believe this) and 2, many of these people also have auto-DM set up to send > >> links and messages to each person that follows them back. Back when I > >> offered this service (we disabled it for this exact reason) people told me > >> they were seeing significant clicks on the links they would send to people > >> via DM after they followed them. Therefore, more follows==more > >> clicks==more > >> revenue. I don't blame them if that's what they're really seeing. > > >> So for this reason I think having limits in place is a *good* thing. I > >> don't think the follow limit is in place due to traffic reasons, since > >> there > >> are many more calls that cause more traffic on the API and there is no > >> limit > >> to unfollows, so I really think Twitter is doing this for the purpose of > >> reducing spam and "gaming" of Twitter. This is a good thing. > > >> However, I think Twitter may be approaching the limits the wrong way. > >> Here's what I think would be more effective, and beneficial for the > >> legitimate users that want to follow back and at the same time not allow > >> those who want to game the system to use the methods I described. Twitter > >> needs to impose limits based on whether the individual is following the > >> user > >> back or not. > > >> For instance, if I follow @dacort and he is following me back, that > >> shouldn't count against me as a hit against my follow limit. However, if I > >> try to follow @dacort and he is not following me back, it should count > >> against me as a hit against my limit. With this, users could easily > >> auto-follow back if they choose to, and it would still be difficult for the > >> users trying to game the system and spam Twitter. In fact, you could > >> significantly *reduce* the limit this way and make it virtually impossible > >> for these users to use Twitter in that manner. If you were to look at the > >> relationship between the users when counting against limits, you could > >> probably reduce the follow/day limit all the way to around 200 per day > >> instead of 1,000 per day. I don't see any reason for the 10% > >> follow/follower ratio with a low limit such as that. > > >> However, as stands, the more followers you get, if you are using Twitter > >> legitimately, you have no way to extend the courtesy back if you choose to > >> do so, since after a certain point you will be following many more than > >> 1,000 users per day. And even if you aren't, it will take an extremely > >> long > >> time for many individuals to finally catch up to follow those following > >> them > >> if they want to at 1,000 follows per day. > > >> I know there are some that disagree with the auto-follow concept. > >> However, I also know most of you also want Twitter to be an open > >> environment where people can choose to use it as they please. Doug, Alex, > >> etc. I'd love it if you guys could at least consider changing the follow > >> limits as I mentioned. The current limits are doing nothing to prevent the > >> spammers - my suggestions I believe will, and will keep it an open > >> environment for the rest of us. > > >> Sorry for the long discourse - I would really love to hear others thoughts > >> and suggestions. > > >> @Jesse > > > -- > > Abraham Williams | Community |http://web608.org > > Hacker |http://abrah.am|http://twitter.com/abraham > > Project |http://fireeagle.labs.poseurtech.com > > This email is: [ ] blogable [x] ask first [ ] private. > > Sent from Madison, WI, United States
