There is a very fundamental reason why I'm not holding my breath for Twitter to make any radical changes to their service: Human nature.
Twitter management has tasted fame, and every Twitter employee can smell fortune around the corner. (Good for them, they deserve it.) It's is just natural that nobody will want to do anything to jeopardize that. Nobody is going to implement something that could cause 60% of the user count to take flight, even if the remaining users will enjoy the service more. Imagine the impact that will have on investors, perceived worth, etc. It's a far easier path to create more nebulous rules, and employ more people to enforce those rules. It does not upset the apple-cart. Dewald On Oct 9, 6:36 pm, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agreed. What else is wefollow.com, which Twitter freely advertises, > but a ranking of people by followers (just look at some of the top > people in the categories and you have to ask yourself, wtf!?) When > the value of a Twitter account is determined by followers (as apps > like wefollow make clear), then people will obviously and naturally > try to increase their follower counts. I mean, Twitter freely > advertises twittercounter.com too... and that app even shows charted > daily growth in followers, prompting viewers to wonder how they, too, > can have such growth. > > And, personally, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that. > After all, which is more detrimental to the community, someone like > Karl Rove or Rick Sanchez or Arnold Schwarzenegger using some auto- > follow technique, or the 10s of 1000s of BS accounts tweeting about > weight loss or promotional URL @replies to random people? > > I wish Twitter would focus it's anti-spam tactics MORE on the content > of the tweet stream, rather than on some amorphous following abuse > which they undercut by highlighting apps like wefollow. Or at least a > combination of the two. There's too many accounts tweeting about > weight loss, etc... and it's a shame when folks like Karl Rove, Rick > Sanchez, and others get suspended because they apparently fell afoul > of follow/unfollow. A quick look at their tweet stream and it is > apparent they are not spammers. > > There's too many false positives in the current anti-spam dragnets, > and far too little focus on the clear-as-day spam tweets currently > making Twitter increasingly hard to use. > > On Oct 9, 12:59 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > One more thought about this. > > > Audience (followers) is to Twitter what PageRank is to Google. Twitter > > created a commodity when it enabled the unlimited follower capability. > > > As long as it is a commodity, money-motivated people will continue to > > exploit it as a commodity, just like they exploit Google's PageRank. > > > The entire SEO industry is centered around ranking high in SE's, with > > Google's PageRank being one of the most coveted commodities. > > > You can expect to see an entire industry forming around gaining > > Twitter followers. And very clever people will continuously try to > > outsmart you to circumvent any counter-measures that you try to > > implement. > > > The only way to win that battle is to make followers a non-commodity. > > > Dewald > > > On Oct 9, 4:04 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > John, > > > > With reference to "used for invalid purposes" in your post. > > > > That begs the question, what exactly constitute invalid purposes? > > > > From a Twitter purist's point of view, anything other than "What are > > > you doing?" constitutes an invalid purpose. > > > > I'd venture to say that very few people use Twitter for "What are you > > > doing?" No way do I want to or need to tell a few thousand strangers > > > (and have it indexed by Google) where I am right now, what I am doing > > > right now, or what I am having for lunch. Facebook is a far better > > > platform for that, where one has privacy and a hand-picked audience > > > who just might care. > > > > Twitter created a platform that is ideally suited for the marketers > > > and mega-phones. Why else would people actually spend money to buy > > > followers, and get involved in all kinds of schemes to acquire more > > > followers? Because the way your platform works enables and encourages > > > that type of purpose. > > > > When you find yourself spending many frustrating hours of fighting > > > "invalid use," you are in effect fighting the animal that Twitter > > > created. One cannot be angry with users when they use the service in > > > unforeseen ways, especially when the service enables that type of use. > > > > The easiest way to fight invalid use is to change Twitter so that only > > > "valid use" is possible. When Facebook realized that they were > > > enabling the mega-phone type, they quickly changed their system to > > > discourage that use by limiting the number of friends one can have. > > > > You either have to do that, or you have to expand your definition of > > > valid use, and rejoice in the success it brings you when people use > > > your service in unexpected and unanticipated ways. > > > > By having a flexible platform that encourages many purposes and trying > > > to limit those purposes only to what you deem valid, you are forever > > > going to fight a losing battle. And, you are laying down rich soil for > > > the competition to germinate. > > > > If every who does not stick to "What are you doing?" abandoned Twitter > > > today, you will be back to where you were in your early days in terms > > > of size and relevance. > > > > Dewald > > > > On Oct 9, 2:07 pm, John Kalucki <jkalu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Openness about abuse is generally counter-productive for everyone. For > > > > example, opaque limits are harder to game and give better detection > > > > signals. Also, practically, limits need to be adjusted without notice > > > > to respond changing attacks. In the end, valid access that is > > > > difficult to distinguish from access overwhelmingly used for invalid > > > > purposes are sometimes, sadly, going to get caught in a low-latency > > > > high-volume countermeasure system. > > > > > -John Kaluckihttp://twitter.com/jkalucki > > > > Services, Twitter Inc. > > > > > On Oct 9, 5:23 am, SuperCerial <s...@cyberdyneseo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Absolutely true. on both counts... > > > > > > However, not so long ago Twitter banned many accounts by mistake > > > > > because they used tweetlater. > > > > > > The trouble is on one hand Twitter supports, encourages the creation > > > > > of these applications and on the other hand fails horribly to provide > > > > > sufficient guidelines about their use. I know one of the accounts was > > > > > purely posting quotes of a dead comedian, and this went down very well > > > > > - had a big following of people who regularly responded positively. > > > > > Account status today? Suspended. Why? Who knows. Who is being asked > > > > > about this? Me. > > > > > > It is not up to the 600 individuals to contact Twitter but rather for > > > > > Twitter to explain what is changing so people can ensure they are > > > > > within these new parameters. > > > > > > On Oct 9, 10:07 am, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Abraham Williams > > > > > > <4bra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Twitter's spam flagging system is an ever-changing trade secret. > > > > > > > It is > > > > > > > unlikely that you will get a direct answer. Have the 600 account > > > > > > > holders > > > > > > > contact Twitter support and hopefully they will get re-enabled > > > > > > > quickly. > > > > > > > Abraham > > > > > > > Or, in the event that they ARE spammers, hopefully they WON'T. > > > > > > People > > > > > > writing, selling or hosting multiple-account management software > > > > > > need > > > > > > to become a LOT more circumspect in who they serve as clientele, and > > > > > > how precisely they serve them. There is a TON of abuse here, and > > > > > > greedy people need to learn a lesson. > > > > > > > Not saying that's the case with the OP, but I'm EXTREMELY happy to > > > > > > see > > > > > > more aggressive filtering going on! (And looking forward to the > > > > > > Address Book!) > > > > > > > ∞ Andy Badera > > > > > > ∞ +1 518-641-1280 > > > > > > ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private > > > > > > ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera