Well said Shannon.
--
Kevin Mesiab
CEO, Mesiab Labs L.L.C.
http://twitter.com/kmesiab
http://mesiablabs.com
http://retweet.com
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
On Aug 11, 3:11 am, TFT Media tftmedia1...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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
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
On Aug 11, 11:48 am, IDOLpeeps belm...@grandcentralholdings.com
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
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:31 PM, IDOLpeeps belm...@grandcentralholdings.com
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
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
belm...@grandcentralholdings.comwrote:
Twitter recently started suspending accounts which bulk
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
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
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
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
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
And here lies the slippery slope.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM, owkaye owk...@gmail.com 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
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 ke...@mesiablabs.com wrote:
And here lies the slippery slope.
On
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
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
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
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 tftmedia1...@gmail.com wrote:
I never said that your system does unfollow. I point out that
tweetlater does bulk auto
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
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
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
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
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
On Aug 10, 8:15 pm, Cameron Kaiser spec...@floodgap.com 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
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
