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 me to fall for it. I don't. I've got only ~2000 followers because most of them were just spammers churning through trying to follow me. Its annoying. Yes, many users fall for it. Many big users auto-follow back because they want the numbers (don't tell me everyone that Scoble followed back initially was a real user).
I personally don't think you should be able to follow more than 25 people per day, but that's just me. -david On Aug 11, 1:55 pm, Kevin Mesiab <ke...@mesiablabs.com> wrote: > 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 not exist. > Period. > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:51 AM, owkaye <owk...@gmail.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 that definition of OK. > > > This seems like a really short-sighted reason for NOT > > clarifying what's acceptable and what's not. > > > If it's acceptable then who cares if the churners adjust > > their methods? At least everyone will know how to avoid > > problems for a change, right? > > -- > Kevin Mesiab > CEO, Mesiab Labs > L.L.C.http://twitter.com/kmesiabhttp://mesiablabs.comhttp://retweet.com