Terms like "spammer" or "good citizen" are kind of vague. What are your goals in ranking users? Are you looking for good people to follow or engage with? In that case it doesn't really matter if they are a bot or a human. What matters is whether others find them interesting. Even more important is how interesting they are within a specific domain. The best sports account, whether their tweets come from a script or a human typing, means nothing to someone who doesn't follow sports. Even if Twitter HQ maintained an absolute rank, it wouldn't apply to all readers of an account. What I do for clients is rank users within their specific area of interest based on a collection of keywords. I ignore follower count, since that is so easy to game with brute force methods. Mentions work as a better measurement of popularity.
I have a detailed tutorial on mention tracking on my site: http://140dev.com/twitter-api-programming-tutorials/identifying-influential-twitter-users/ Here is a summary of the algorithm. What I do is aggregate tweets for keywords, and record @mentions. If @fred mentions @sally, I record @fred as the source and @sally as the target. Then I can rank users by the number of mentions they receive as the target, or even more useful is ranking users by the number of different sources mention them. That is hardest to game. The real key is that this is based on mentions in tweets that contain specific keywords. On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Dave-twiends <i...@davesumter.com> wrote: > I think one solution is if twitter could use their hidden karma score > to provide "good citizen" flag for us. > > So, they shouldn't provide any kind of score to the outside world via > the web or API, but they could use it to provide an "indicator" for a > clean account. > > In other words, we would assume all accounts to be potential spammers > until we see the "good citizen" flag on the account, then we can be a > little more trusting of that account. Not completely trusting, but > just use it as an indicator.. > > On Oct 17, 6:43 am, "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <zn...@borasky- > research.net> wrote: >> I don't know about a "karma" score, but Twitalyzer does have an API >> and so does Klout. For that matter, Viralheat has an API and they can >> get both Twitalyzer and Klout scores. >> >> That said, I don't know that there's ever really going to be a "one >> size fits all" Twitter user metric. But there are quite a few >> "crowdsourcing" and "curation" tools starting to show up, some of them >> open source. But personally, I think it's more fun to just collect raw >> data via the API and roll your own. ;-) >> -- >> M. Edward (Ed) Boraskyhttp://borasky-research.nethttp://twitter.com/znmeb >> >> "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems." - Paul Erdos >> >> Quoting Justin <justin.carl...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >> > Rating/scoring users is something I'm working on as well and I agree. >> > I've found sorting out bots and pure spammers to be very difficult. >> > Some folks tweet so much they resemble bots/spam. >> >> > Feels like a pipe dream but if they can I'd love a karma scoring >> > system directly from the API. >> >> > On Oct 16, 4:28 am, Dave-twiends <i...@davesumter.com> wrote: >> >> I really like the option of reporting spam via the api. I’ve been >> >> blocking spam on my site for a long time but this gives me an option >> >> to report it now, and hopefully get these account suspended quicker so >> >> that they don’t come back. >> >> >> It would be really great if we could have a proactive api function as >> >> well, where we could get the likelihood of a user being a spammer. I >> >> know this is really difficult to do, and wrought with pitfalls, but >> >> perhaps it could be structured in some way? Maybe you could provide a >> >> “good citizen” flag for a user (i.e a user that hasn’t had any >> >> complaints, and has a certain account age). That way you don’t >> >> negatively impact any users, but we can then at least treat these >> >> users differently when they sign up with our site. >> >> >> I’m seeing more and more the need to provide different limits to users >> >> based on private trust/karma score we develop for each user. This >> >> would be a very valuable input for us to detect potential problem >> >> users before they can cause damage. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Dave >> >> > -- >> > Twitter developer documentation and resources:http://dev.twitter.com/doc >> > API updates via Twitter:http://twitter.com/twitterapi >> > Issues/Enhancements >> > Tracker:http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list >> > Change your membership to this group: >> >http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk > > -- > Twitter developer documentation and resources: http://dev.twitter.com/doc > API updates via Twitter: http://twitter.com/twitterapi > Issues/Enhancements Tracker: http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list > Change your membership to this group: > http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk > -- Twitter developer documentation and resources: http://dev.twitter.com/doc API updates via Twitter: http://twitter.com/twitterapi Issues/Enhancements Tracker: http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list Change your membership to this group: http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk