Every time I saw this thread in my inbox my blood pressure rose. I just
took the time to read it and there is actually some valid content in here.


    I run bots. Political campaign stuff, adaptively speaks in hashtags, low
frequency, provides some value. We ask people to NOT follow them as they're
just supposed to be announcing occasional links, but they still gather real
people. Go figure ... and I relentlessly prune autofollow junk. My teeth are
white enough and I give a little round shit about forex trading.

   The bots do a lot more than messaging - like the new Twitter contributor
feature we permit trusted followers (yay, lists!) to speak via a set of
direct message commands. Less trusted users can access a pallet of canned
responses - "MSG [SUBJECT] userid".  The whole point is to harness willing
supporters but provide them guidelines. Followers can also sign themselves
up for lists - SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE. So this is how they get direct
messages - it's for our very committed, responsive activists. We're moving
into a low volume, realistic retweet service. It's gotta be something that
the real human would RT anyway, so we're just helping them to find good
content from candidates & campaigns they like anyway.

  I saw this thread and I thought "Great, Britbot will be multiplying like
bunnies". After some consideration ...

   It would be nice if a serious web site, say one of the climate activist
sites, could at the time of sign up ask for OR create a new Twitter ID for
the person joining. This *would* be a Twitter API call, it would have a
human associated, and we'd be herding those humans into using the
semi-automated systems like the one I describe above.


   I also do some large scale automated messaging. Twitter doesn't seem to
mind - it's basically data going into hashtags for each Congressional
district. It's not entirely stable and operational, but we're doing things
like providing links to the incumbent & challenger's Twitter IDs, should
they be known, providing links to the FEC data, etc. We spend a lot of time
gather it, the content would almost always be high value in the eyes of
someone looking at the tag, and the sole exception seems to be those poor
people in Delaware, which has an at large Congressman. #DEAL :-(

   I've considered getting one our our people to mass register some scheme
of accounts for each Congressional district and then making it do stuff. The
jury is still out on this - we have lots to do, this is high value but long
lead time before it enhances our reputation. I'll make some move on this
before the election, but maybe not till midsummer.


    The sales bots ... meh. If they just follow and they're responding to a
keyword I use I block 'em. It would be a lot less annoying if they'd follow,
hang for 72 hours or something, and then drop me.


   OK, enough talk about development, time to actually go DO some ...




2010/1/27 Ken Dobruskin <k...@cimas.ch>

>  +1, Ed. Nice post. The humans will win!
>
> Whether every RSS feed, weather station, search query, refrigerator, etc is
> allowed to be turned into a twitter bot is a policy decision for Twitter. I
> like to think that Twitter would prefer to be an original source of unique
> and meaningful content and not just a dump for low grade data.
>
>
> > First of all, there is only one form of spam - it's *unsolicited*
> messages sent massively.
>
> When I am followed by a bot, or even a human who has no actual interest in
> my tweets but is only trying for a follow back, I regard it as an
> unsolicited message.
> This happens way too much and as a victim, I don't care if it's been done
> "massively". Spam is spam and fake following - on whatever scale - not only
> uses resources but complicates analysis of the social network. Twitter has
> allowed the follow mechanism to be repurposed as a simple attention grabbing
> measure, but they tell us that the rules will evolve. It is also within
> their power to keep the bot armies at bay.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:37:43 -0800
>
> Subject: Re: [twitter-dev] Re: Mass account creation
> From: zzn...@gmail.com
>
> To: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:02 AM, DenisioDelBoro <alya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> First of all, there is only one form of spam - it's *unsolicited*
> messages sent massively.
> Second of all, tell me, please, in what way creating, let's say, 100
> accounts just for tweeting weather forecasts for different cities is a
> spam? I'm not talking about mentioning there random nicknames or
> something like that to get new followers, of course. Just pure
> forecast, without any links.
> Third of all, why do you think those RSS feeds will be useless? Maybe
> it's more convenient for some users to get updates with Twitter than
> with Google Reader.
>
>
> I don't see how  "creating, let's say, 100 accounts just for tweeting
> weather forecasts for different cities" fits in with the Twitter "spirit",
> which is humans talking to other humans over the messaging system. For
> example, here in Portland, we have a hashtag, "#pdxtst" (PDX Twitter Storm
> Team) where we talk about the sometimes unusual weather in this normally
> boring rainy place. It's people talking about the weather.
>
> We had an unexpected snowstorm a few weeks back, and Mayor Sam Adams got on
> Twitter and gave traffic and Tri-Met updates. I doubt very seriously if the
> folks in the #pdxtst chat would have appreciated some bot spewing the
> National Weather Service warnings or the stuff coming from the TV weather
> crews. Those crews were, in fact, on Twitter conversing with people!
> Fortunately, this all happened before the "texting while driving" ban went
> into effect.
>
> Maybe what you propose is simply annoying and not spam, but don't be too
> terribly surprised if you build it and see people blocking you, rather than
> simply not following. I unfollow bots often and block when something gets
> "annoying enough". But Twitter isn't intended to be an aggregator!
>
>
> On 27 янв, 18:30, Dale Folla MeDia <mogul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the only possible reasons someone would have to create that many accounts
> > would be to spam in one form or another.  There should be other ways to
> skin
> > that cat..  You could not keep up with that many accounts unless you sent
> > out huge amounts of useless RSS feeeds just to gain followers so you can
> > mass dm them...
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote:
> > > I would point them to examples of other apps (local news spammers come
> > > to mind) that have recently been blacklisted.
> >
> > > That aside, I for one am 100% opposed to giving anyone this sort of
> > > tool. Not that certain other people on this list haven't already done
> > > so for profit, sadly.
> >
> > > ∞ Andy Badera
> > > ∞ +1 518-641-1280 Google Voice
> > > ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private
> > > ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera
> >
> > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Jonathan Markwell
> > > <j.l.markw...@inuda.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi All,
> >
> > > > Would be interested to hear both the community's opinion on this and
> > > > the official Twitter view.
> >
> > > > I have a client that wants to create thousands of new accounts that
> > > > they can use to send out a wide variety of niche interest tweets.
> They
> > > > already have a quote from an outsourcing company that can do the work
> > > > and are keen to go ahead. The accounts will, for the most part, be
> > > > automated but I'm encouraging them to ensure each gets at least some
> > > > human participation in them on a regular basis.
> >
> > > > I'm apprehensive about this and I'm trying to disuade them from going
> > > > ahead. I'm not convinced that accounts that are primarily automated,
> > > > especially when set up on this scale can add that much value to the
> > > > ecosystem. Their feeling is quite the opposite and they believe the
> > > > audience they are working to provide for will find this extremely
> > > > valuable. In addition they are confident, and have some data to back
> > > > it up, that what they are creating will bring a huge number of new
> > > > real users to Twitter.
> >
> > > > What are your thoughts on this?
> >
> > > > Jon.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Jonathan Markwell
> > > > Engineer | Founder | Connector
> >
> > > > Inuda Innovations Ltd, Brighton, UK
> >
> > > > Web application development & support
> > > > Twitter & Facebook integration specialists
> > > >http://inuda.com
> >
> > > > Organising the world's first events for the Twitter developer
> Community
> > > >http://TwitterDeveloperNest.com<http://twitterdevelopernest.com/>
> >
> > > > Providing a nice little place to work in the middle of Brighton -
> > > >http://theskiff.org
> >
> > > > Measuring your brand's visibility on the social web -
> > >http://HowSociable.com<http://howsociable.com/>
> >
> > > > mob: 07766 021 485 | tel: 01273 704 549 | fax: 01273 376 953
> > > > skype: jlmarkwell | twitter:http://twitter.com/jot
> >
> > --
> > Dale Merritt
> > Fol.la MeDia, LLC
>
>
>
>
> --
> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
> http://borasky-research.net
>
> "I've always regarded nature as the clothing of God." ~Alan Hovhaness
>
> ------------------------------
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it 
> now.<https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>
>



-- 
mailto:n...@layer3arts.com //
GoogleTalk: nrauhau...@gmail.com
GV: 202-642-1717

Reply via email to