Agreed. What else is wefollow.com, which Twitter freely advertises, but a ranking of people by followers (just look at some of the top people in the categories and you have to ask yourself, wtf!?) When the value of a Twitter account is determined by followers (as apps like wefollow make clear), then people will obviously and naturally try to increase their follower counts. I mean, Twitter freely advertises twittercounter.com too... and that app even shows charted daily growth in followers, prompting viewers to wonder how they, too, can have such growth.
And, personally, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that. After all, which is more detrimental to the community, someone like Karl Rove or Rick Sanchez or Arnold Schwarzenegger using some auto- follow technique, or the 10s of 1000s of BS accounts tweeting about weight loss or promotional URL @replies to random people? I wish Twitter would focus it's anti-spam tactics MORE on the content of the tweet stream, rather than on some amorphous following abuse which they undercut by highlighting apps like wefollow. Or at least a combination of the two. There's too many accounts tweeting about weight loss, etc... and it's a shame when folks like Karl Rove, Rick Sanchez, and others get suspended because they apparently fell afoul of follow/unfollow. A quick look at their tweet stream and it is apparent they are not spammers. There's too many false positives in the current anti-spam dragnets, and far too little focus on the clear-as-day spam tweets currently making Twitter increasingly hard to use. On Oct 9, 12:59 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > One more thought about this. > > Audience (followers) is to Twitter what PageRank is to Google. Twitter > created a commodity when it enabled the unlimited follower capability. > > As long as it is a commodity, money-motivated people will continue to > exploit it as a commodity, just like they exploit Google's PageRank. > > The entire SEO industry is centered around ranking high in SE's, with > Google's PageRank being one of the most coveted commodities. > > You can expect to see an entire industry forming around gaining > Twitter followers. And very clever people will continuously try to > outsmart you to circumvent any counter-measures that you try to > implement. > > The only way to win that battle is to make followers a non-commodity. > > Dewald > > On Oct 9, 4:04 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > John, > > > With reference to "used for invalid purposes" in your post. > > > That begs the question, what exactly constitute invalid purposes? > > > From a Twitter purist's point of view, anything other than "What are > > you doing?" constitutes an invalid purpose. > > > I'd venture to say that very few people use Twitter for "What are you > > doing?" No way do I want to or need to tell a few thousand strangers > > (and have it indexed by Google) where I am right now, what I am doing > > right now, or what I am having for lunch. Facebook is a far better > > platform for that, where one has privacy and a hand-picked audience > > who just might care. > > > Twitter created a platform that is ideally suited for the marketers > > and mega-phones. Why else would people actually spend money to buy > > followers, and get involved in all kinds of schemes to acquire more > > followers? Because the way your platform works enables and encourages > > that type of purpose. > > > When you find yourself spending many frustrating hours of fighting > > "invalid use," you are in effect fighting the animal that Twitter > > created. One cannot be angry with users when they use the service in > > unforeseen ways, especially when the service enables that type of use. > > > The easiest way to fight invalid use is to change Twitter so that only > > "valid use" is possible. When Facebook realized that they were > > enabling the mega-phone type, they quickly changed their system to > > discourage that use by limiting the number of friends one can have. > > > You either have to do that, or you have to expand your definition of > > valid use, and rejoice in the success it brings you when people use > > your service in unexpected and unanticipated ways. > > > By having a flexible platform that encourages many purposes and trying > > to limit those purposes only to what you deem valid, you are forever > > going to fight a losing battle. And, you are laying down rich soil for > > the competition to germinate. > > > If every who does not stick to "What are you doing?" abandoned Twitter > > today, you will be back to where you were in your early days in terms > > of size and relevance. > > > Dewald > > > On Oct 9, 2:07 pm, John Kalucki <jkalu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Openness about abuse is generally counter-productive for everyone. For > > > example, opaque limits are harder to game and give better detection > > > signals. Also, practically, limits need to be adjusted without notice > > > to respond changing attacks. In the end, valid access that is > > > difficult to distinguish from access overwhelmingly used for invalid > > > purposes are sometimes, sadly, going to get caught in a low-latency > > > high-volume countermeasure system. > > > > -John Kaluckihttp://twitter.com/jkalucki > > > Services, Twitter Inc. > > > > On Oct 9, 5:23 am, SuperCerial <s...@cyberdyneseo.com> wrote: > > > > > Absolutely true. on both counts... > > > > > However, not so long ago Twitter banned many accounts by mistake > > > > because they used tweetlater. > > > > > The trouble is on one hand Twitter supports, encourages the creation > > > > of these applications and on the other hand fails horribly to provide > > > > sufficient guidelines about their use. I know one of the accounts was > > > > purely posting quotes of a dead comedian, and this went down very well > > > > - had a big following of people who regularly responded positively. > > > > Account status today? Suspended. Why? Who knows. Who is being asked > > > > about this? Me. > > > > > It is not up to the 600 individuals to contact Twitter but rather for > > > > Twitter to explain what is changing so people can ensure they are > > > > within these new parameters. > > > > > On Oct 9, 10:07 am, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Abraham Williams <4bra...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Twitter's spam flagging system is an ever-changing trade secret. It > > > > > > is > > > > > > unlikely that you will get a direct answer. Have the 600 account > > > > > > holders > > > > > > contact Twitter support and hopefully they will get re-enabled > > > > > > quickly. > > > > > > Abraham > > > > > > Or, in the event that they ARE spammers, hopefully they WON'T. People > > > > > writing, selling or hosting multiple-account management software need > > > > > to become a LOT more circumspect in who they serve as clientele, and > > > > > how precisely they serve them. There is a TON of abuse here, and > > > > > greedy people need to learn a lesson. > > > > > > Not saying that's the case with the OP, but I'm EXTREMELY happy to see > > > > > more aggressive filtering going on! (And looking forward to the > > > > > Address Book!) > > > > > > ∞ Andy Badera > > > > > ∞ +1 518-641-1280 > > > > > ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private > > > > > ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera > >
