On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Jesse Stay<jesses...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Caliban I agree - I'm simply proposing that my solution for follow limits is > at least a little better for users than what Twitter is currently doing. > What is being done currently hurts the legitimate users more than it does > the spammers.
Whatever you do to limit behavior will always hurt legitimate users more than spammers, because the spammers are a tiny minority of users. Personally, I agree that removing all limits is the right thing to do, because if you uncork the abuse pipeline... the abuse becomes a LOT easier to see. When you see someone jump on the service and follow 50,000 people, you can flag that person immediately and watch their tweets for a day or two. When they start pumping out worthless crap, you see it, and you shut down their account. Give them enough rope to hang themselves, basically, and they'll do it faster. If there's no documented limit, they'll remain totally clueless about the limits that trigger a watch, and it will take them a long time to figure it out. If you tweak it constantly, the way Google does their ranking criteria, they'll settle into a pattern of behaviour that simply isn't abusive. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:03 PM, dewald<dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think it is a matter of Twitter, especially the founding members, > going through the agony of seeing their brainchild being used in ways > they did not intend Welcome to community development. Whatever you create, no matter how pure your intentions, will ultimately be turned into a platform for sex, spam, and stupidity. I'm sure Jon Postel rolls over in his grave whenever someone posts on icanhascheezburger.com ;)
