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 their unfollow limit because "naughties" would use
it.  To me, at least, I don't see much difference between using a
known unfollow limit versus using a known follow limit, which you are
apparently doing.

If I was to use your bulk auto return follow, I am probably going to
end up with a significant proportion of spammers as friends.  To then
implicitly claim that the process of weeding out those spammers is the
"churn" part, and that the initial blind auto follow isn't part of
it... that just strikes me as silly.

I imagine (hope) that Twitter has more sophistication 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