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 how many you could unfollow in a day that
the "naughties" would go -1 on that.  It seems to me that's pretty
close to what you're doing with your bulk auto follow feature.

For you to categorically state, as you apparently do, that unfollow is
churn, while things like your auto follow are not, is just silly.  If
I was to use your return follow feature and follow everyone who
follows me first, I am probably going to end up with a bunch of
spammers.  But apparently if I then choose to weed out those spammers
then it is THAT which is the churn?

I think there is far more nuance and sophistication (or at least I
hope so) with Twitter's suspension system then to view only one side
of the equation as the culprit in suspensions.

On Aug 11, 4:42 am, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 -1, -2, -3, or whatever.
> You pulled that snippet from my feature that finds potential new
> friends based on user-selected keywords. That snippet simply means
> that the user can pause that feature when her account reaches the
> point where she would not be able to follow more people anyway. And
> no, my system absolutely does NOT then unfollow to "make room for
> more".
> Here is what I very publicly said about bulk unfollow:
> http://bit.ly/JM3as
> Dewald

Reply via email to