How can ANYONE follow 10,000 or more?

by Robert Scoble on August 12, 2009

Caroline Halliwell asked a question I’ve frequently been asked “how can anyone honestly follow 10s of 1,000’s?”

She was talking about Twitter. I made fun of Chris Brogan because he follows almost 90,000 people on Twitter and today wrote an blog about friending and reputation.

Chris autofollows everyone back. I did that until a week ago.

Let’s be honest, if you are following 90,000 people you can NOT see every Tweet. Twitter won’t even display them all to you. TweetDeck won’t be able to get access to all of them. The stream moves too quickly. I figure that over about 25,000 people you are DE FACTO only seeing a random number of Tweets.

In fact, I’m now following 1,900 people and I only probably see 1/2 of all the Tweets. I miss all Tweets while I sleep, for instance, and a lot of times when I get home from interviews or dinners or other things I can’t catch up to all the Tweets I missed, and that’s with 1,900. So even I’m only seeing a random number of items.

There is a difference between Following (with a capital “F”) and following, the way Chris and I are doing it.

Over on FriendFeed I was using groups to follow a small number of people very intimately. My wife, for instance, and my son, were Followed (capital F) very closely in a group. I saw 100% of what they write. Another group, of tech thought leaders was followed pretty closely. I probably saw 80% of what flowed through that group. But the other groups of 25,000 people? I randomly saw what they were writing. I saw maybe 10%. So, if you wrote 10 Tweets I might see one of those.

Here’s the rub: who you follow defines you.

It’s why I have different groups. Mostly I’m looking to follow early adopters and influencers. Why? Because they are the ones who push markets forward and make the most interesting content FOR ME. I then filter that content and share it back out, either as Twitter Favorites or FriendFeed Likes. Those are feeds of things that caught my eye and contain no noise FOR ME. For you, if you don’t care about tech, they will be all noise.

Anyway, over on my second Twitter account I mostly followed only people I’ve met personally. That came to about 1,300 people. I took all those people and then added on another 600 that I was interested in, over on my main Twitter account (and I’m adding more there every day).

Who you follow is a defacto endorsement of them. That’s why people get so up in arms when you unfollow everyone. It really makes them mad.

By the way, out of my 1,900 I’m following about 800 who aren’t following me, according to Eric Andersen. Which is just fine. They are worth following.

See, this is where I disagree with Chris Brogan. If you’ve been careful about who you follow, it IS an endorsement and it DOES define you. It also signals to the world who you want to follow (because you can look at who I’m following, and you can then say “hey, so and so would be a good person for you to follow.”)

Anyway, there are some things you can do to follow more people.

1. Get a mobile phone, preferably the iPhone. I tried the Palm Pre, a Blackberry, several Nokia Phones, but the iPhone is the best for following people because of all the great Twitter Apps on the iPhone. Right now I’m using SimplyTweet, which is a great iPhone app. Anyway, by having a mobile phone you can check into Twitter more often, which will help you see important news more often.
2. Use multiple accounts. One to follow more people. One to follow fewer people. See how each works for you. I find that intimacy is good, but sometimes I want the serendipity of finding weird items that you can only get by following more people. Or, use a Twitter client like Seesmic, PeopleBrowsr, or TweetDeck which let you separate the people you are following into groups. I don’t like using those for groups, because I like switching clients too much and groups aren’t portable between clients.
3. Get a larger monitor, or more monitors. Watching Twitter, in a high-flow environment, is easier on big monitors. Especially if you’re using clients, a separate monitor lets you glance over at them several times an hour, which will help you catch more.
4. Switch to using searches more, and following fewer people. Searches keep you more on track and let you find more people talking about things you’re interested in, anyway.

Anyway, how do you follow people? How do you think it defines you? Do you see a follow as an endorsement?

If you look through who I’m following, is there anyone I should be following?

Tagged as: , ,

  • i follow tweets almost exclusively through searches, which allows me to follow everyone on twitter, not just the people i'm following. best way to find people with similar interests.
  • Just weighing in here once again on the following issue. Contrary to popular belief I DO NOT follow everyone back and I have NEVER used an auto-follower. It is quite easy to follow 65,000 people. I monitor my DMs and @replies and "graze" in my stream. Anyone that thinks it is necessary to see everything that everyone they follow tweets is nuts anyway. Very few people would read EVERY word in a newspaper or magazine, so why would anyone in their right mind think it is necessary to do so in a stream-oriented environment like Twitter? I also block at least 20% of the people who follow me and follow the rest back. The ones I do block (and why) have been categorized in my blog post about this (Google WebX.Oh!) This works best for me. I am easily able to spend the 10 or 15 minutes a day it takes to read my DMs and @replies and respond as necessary, and to hand pick (or block) who I follow. Anyone can send me a DM and vice-versa. I like it that way. However, I can understand why someone who uses an auto-follower would not like to look at their stream, it would be filled with rubbish. My stream is high-quality because I have hand-picked EACH AND EVERY ONE of the 65,000 people in it over the course of two years, and I advise everyone else to do the same whether it is zero, 100,000, or like me, somewhere in between.
  • I've had that many people aimed at me and I'm calling your bluff. Unless you don't sleep at all, and have access to Twitter's firehose feed, you can't possibly even see all the Tweets. But, let's say you do, I've had stuff rolling down my screens lots of times (I follow tens of thousands over on FriendFeed that I have aimed at one feed and it displays all of those in real time). There's no way you can see everything unless that's all you do, and you never do anything else. That's not a nice life.

    So, how many do you get to see? I probably only saw 5%, maybe not even that, and I was a VERY active follower of Tweets. Maybe you see more, but I bet if we instrumented you (eye track) we'd see you aren't really reading that many either.

    What you have is a serendipity machine. I appreciate that. But I find I get "enough" serendipity by following less than 2,000. And I'm getting a LOT LESS noise.

    But, I wish you well with your reading. I tried that and it didn't work and if it didn't work for me it won't work for 99.99999% of humans out there. :-)
  • I can't believe it, it doesn't seem to matter how many times or ways I write it. I DO NOT see all my tweets, nor do I now or have I ever cared to see them all. So there's no "bluff" to call. It is more important to me that all of the people I have chosen to follow can contact me directly (and not just vice-versa). I set up a separate account that only follows news feeds, I also have one that follows a handful of people I know personally. But even on these accounts I never see all of the tweets, nor do I think it's really all that important. I can always go to someone's profile page, after all. You can all use Twitter the way you want, I'm just tired of people saying I can't meaningfully follow these people. I can and do. And will, until Twitter makes it physically impossible, which wouldn't surprise me... But remember, I NEVER auto-followed anyone, I always knew that was the road to perdition. When I see that I made a mistake to follow someone (idiotic spam or other crap in a tweet) I simply remove them, it's like picking lint off a dark suit, since my stream is "clean", see? Now, go tease Chris Brogan some more... :-))
  • The basic difference is in the definition, of what is "to follow someone". @praguebob go completely different view on this as I or @scobleizer does. When I follow someone, I'am interested in what he is tweeting and that's why I consider following thousands of people a complete waste, because there is so much information flowing, that it ultimately turns itself into a noise (no matter how you pick your following - it's just too much words). Yeah, you don't have to read everything, almost no one does, but after reaching certain traffic in a Twitter feed, it's impossible to get something useful from it (yeah, filtering does help, but only to certain extent).
    Your "meaningfully following" is different because you read only a fraction of the common flow (you stated a while ago, that you monitor mentions/search/dm's and don't really bother with feed) of tweets while we (the people who consider having so much people in following a nonsense) are trying to catch with the tweets flowing from people we follow. BTW that's the reason while lot of people can't follow me (or other active twitter users), because we post too much stuff and they don't want to have so much tweets flowing on them (and that's mostly people with under 100 following).
    Check this http://twitter-friends.com/index.php it clearly shows the usage patterns with very cool stats (video explains the numbers). Compare yourself with me or @scobleizer or anyone else.
  • Yep, like I said, the mutual follow is what's important to me, to be able to send and receive DMs (not just one way). You have it your way, I'll have it mine. What works for me might not work for you, and that's fine. The problem I have with your comments is that you insist on calling my use of Twitter "insane". I can assure you that my use of Twitter is at least as "effective" as yours, I have explained in detail how it works (and why). I maintain that what's "insane" is the feeling that a person has to read every tweet of their stream, or really even a fraction. Relax. Graze. Enjoy what you do happen to catch. You aren't doing anyone any favors by pretending that you hang on every word of what the people you follow are tweeting. If you find it necessary to focus in detail, visit the person's profile page, subscribe via RSS, filter, make groups, use Twitter (or even Google) search... there are many, many ways. But PLEASE stop telling me that I cannot meaningfully follow the people I am following on Twitter. I can, and do (and not only that, but they know it!). Thanks.
  • I follow intimates by grouping them on Tweetdeck. However, I've been waiting for a year for a Twitter application that can mass unfollow those who have the terms "white teeth", "car insurance" or "get more followers" in their profile. That would be a killer app.
  • websuccessdiva
    I agree with Chris on this one. Following isn't about endorsement, it's a "permission slip" to contact me privately and possibly get my attention. If you're lost in the stream, then you're likely not interesting enough for me to want to pay attention anyways. Those that I wish to connect with on a deeper level, I group in applications or tools for easy access... others, well, I'm happy to connect, if we take it to another level you'll eventually get added to a group, if not, the door is always open.

    :-)
  • OK, I like that definition too. But, I'd rather treat each account I follow as an endorsement, of kinds (obviously it's not a strong endorsement). Even if I link to a competitor I'm endorsing them a bit, and giving them both my attention, and the potential attention of those who follow me.
  • websuccessdiva
    Agreed, there is some level of endorsement -- not sure I agree on the actual weight of a perceived endorsement at the superficial level of connecting. I believe, as the social web continues to transform, the weight of perceived endorsement like followers on Twitter will dwindle as communities of individuals become more saturated and interconnected. The masses will adjust and start to value other factors in perceiving endorsement... For me, at the surface level of connection, I retain the status of always being open, never intending anything more, what happens from there to enrich/deepen the potential relationship -- that's where the magic happens :-)
  • rexgradeless
    Whether or not someone you follow is considered a per se endorsement depends on the particular user's use of Twitter. You, Scoble, say the people YOU follow is some kind of "endorsement" thus that is your relative definition.

    Others, however, do not consider the people they follow to be an endorsement. Consider @BarackObama or any other public figure. I can promise you they don't consider those who they follow an endorsement nor does the rest of society believe these public figures are endorsing anyone, to any degree. I can only imagine the campaign adds if they were considered endorsements!
  • There's a very simple channel for anyone to get my attention. It's called "email". You even get to say things that take longer than 140 characters! :)

    Publish your email, or, if you want real time, your IM (although email is more real-time these days thanks to mobile email). You don't need to create a faux-friendship on Twitter to be open for others to stay in touch.
  • websuccessdiva
    Email is my deeper connection, doors open on Twitter or anywhere else on the social web. There are different levels of relationship throughout life, nothing to do with faux, more to do with breadth and depth, letting relationships take their natural course... or not ;-)
  • I think you're both right :-)
  • YES, Jesse! I agree with you! :)

    Law of attraction sorts it all out , anyway! For those that are focusing on what they don't want (spammers, etc) - they will get more of that. For those that are focusing on what they do want (great conversations) - they will get more of that.

    And if I am meant to read someone's tweet, it will show up in my experience.

    For example, I have followed both Robert and Chris on twitter for over a year. (I have followed Robert on twitter AND friendfeed.)

    They are both very active. I don't have time to read every morsel of wisdom they write. HOWEVER, I do catch the stuff that applies to my life because I will either see their post directly OR one of my thousands I am following will post about it and I will catch it!

    I love how law of attraction works because the Universe is set up to make EVERYONE right! :)
  • Especially in Social Media :-)
  • I agree with you that to get the best out of Twitter, it's all about who you follow.

    Can I ask a Q: How do you get any work done when you spend so much time on Twitter and FF? This is a serious Q... I follow 100 peps and this takes up an hour of my day keeping track of every tweet. Just wondering how you manage your time on Twitter and FF and if you have any tips!
  • A big chunk of Scoble's job *is* FriendFeed and Twitter. He's a media platform.
  • I also have 15,000 on Facebook. :-) But I don't use that as much. Oh, and Google Reader is getting more of my time lately too since about 1,000 people have added me in the past two weeks (it was dead for quite a while). I also have 1,000 on Upcoming.org and keep my calendar there up to date. I'll be visiting Yelp on Monday, too. Maybe I should do a few restaurant reviews! ;-)
  • There's an interesting problem that still needs solving. You really need a dashboard these days for this. I mean, we can't stay wired to several firefox tabs. The tools aren't evolving to suit the needs.
  • It's not just my job, it's a lifestyle. I carry my iPhone everywhere and am almost constantly on it.
  • So here's the thing I tell people about 90,000 (and btw, I killed autofollow a week or so ago and blogged about it. It's too much. I'm *nigh* on doing the socialtoo nuke method, too).

    About 90,000 people. I'm not following you all so I can read every tweet. I'm following you all so you can send me a private message. I've wired up the phone. I'm not asking to be ON IT all day long. That's the difference.

    Dial tone. I've brought my own.

    So, no I don't see following as endorsement. I don't see it as a voucher that I'll read your stream closely. I'm reading 185 folks closely in facebook, and probably 1900 or so in twitter.


    Just a variation on the theme.
  • Yeah, autofollowing was an interesting idea before the spammers moved in. Direct Messaging has ALWAYS been broken. I wish they would just get rid of DM and just let me put there "please contact me via email at scobleizer@gmail.com." Which is pretty much what people will figure out now that they won't be able to DM me. It's not a good solution, but oh well.

    The thing is, now that I've hand picked everyone I'm following, my behavior IS an endorsement. Your group of followings is useless. I know you didn't really follow them, but a machine did. But mine? Is very useful. It's a good list of industry professionals and interesting people. And, by the way, you're on it and I do endorse you. :-)
  • Right! So you're right on the fact that if unfollow and then refollow, what will then happen is that those I follow will be a measure of those I feel are more valuable. There's SOME interest in that. It's the step where people feel like I'm too good for them that I don't want.

    That's my #1 concern. I want people to know that I respect them and want them to have the ability to DM me. I'm not reading every tweet, but I'm communicating every day.

    I *just* got a bunch of DM complaints that I recommended @skydiver, because he "doesn't follow people back." So, though you and I both know that the reality of a follow is that we don't really see the tweet stream, the PERCEPTION (which IS reality) is that non-reciprocal experiences mean you're a toolbag.

    The crux.
  • I'm a toolbag so you don't have to. :-)

    Personally anyone who demands on reciprocal following is a toolbag. You can keep doing it, I'm off that system, it just isn't scalable. And, anyway, I only like playing games to win and there's no way to win the "who has more followers?" game because Twitter screwed with the game by doing the suggested user list. I don't play games where the ref decides who wins. And, so, since I'm not playing that game, if I ever did, I'm going for quality inbound. Quality inbound means quality outbound.
  • Now that's another seriously interesting bend in this conversation. I'm glad you bring it up, Robert.

    You're 100% spot on: Twitter permitted (or didn't foresee) the ability for people to game the follower system. And that means the rise to the top doesn't exist.

    Accepting that, let's talk briefly about this: it's not the number of followers that matter. It's the number of followers who take action and who contribute that matter. You know this intrinsically, Robert. That's why you fell in love with FriendFeed. It was a place where actionable followers were rewarding you for your contributions and interactions.

    I spend my time cultivating relationships on Twitter so that I don't have to beat the 500,000 follower turds. I ask humans to do it for me.
  • When people take the time to learn how Twitter & associated tools work, hopefully they understand that it's not about being followed, because you can be heard better using replies than you ever would in a stream of tens of thousands.

    I have around 1300 followers, and follow back less than 500. But I often get replies from people who I don't follow, and I make a point to respond to them (and often follow back.) It seems to work well for me, but then, people want to be able to say yeah, Chris Brogan/Robert Scoble follow me. I don't think being followed by @banannie has the same emotional component ;).
  • I 100% agree with you, Chris. Though I don't do auto follow, I manually approve each person as I get time. Often I will approve people so they can DM me only. I don't have a problem following my stream because I manage my stream using groups, clients, my mobile phone, columns, tools and a judicious application of my attention. By starting filtering techniques early in my social media use, it scales for me.

    I get annoyed when people announce their following system or following changes, on various services. Social Media is by design an a la carte system. It's very individual. What works for me may not work for others, and that's ok. But announcing a mass unfollow, or blogging endlessly about the "reasons" behind every addition or subtraction to a stream often smacks of attention mongering to me. It's definitely in my social media "pet peeve" column, right next to "follower systems" that get people 19,500 followers and the like, auto DMs and invitations to stupid quizzes and apps... ;)

    I disagree with Robert that a follow is an endorsement, but that's because for me it is a utility. For me, recommendations on Linked In and sitting on panels with people are endorsements. Sending out a note on Twitter, Facebook, etc that people should listen to someone on a topic is an endorsement. For me, endorsement requires a conscious act, not a passive follow.
  • Robert,
    Reactions? I don't see how you keep up with it all. Kudos to you. I'm just keeping my one account, and trying to be more ruthless on who I follow, and unfollow based on their tweets.
    I was inspired by your "unfollowing" story last week.
    Good morning.
    Kevin
  • buckybit
    giving away the smart advise for free, that is so you, Robert:)

    Who was it that said: "I am not who I am, I am who I interact with" ? = making choices and drawing lines is important. Managing 24 hours; staying productive.

    Like with braincells you enhance the synapses that are important (real people - biz friends) and the rest sparks from time to time or not.
  • Oddly Robert, I also agree with both of you. So I have two accounts.

    1. I follow thousands. And yes, there is a value to this because my point sample reads give me insights re the bot/human ratio, high school kids, niche blogger etc.

    2. I follow only tech, media, marketing, and vc movers. You and chris are on this list. Though, not quite sure where you fit =)
  • emonome
    I used to go nuts about following/follower business....but that led to a Twitter-induced meltdown (0f sort). So, I simply decided to unfollow everyone one day, give it a couple of days and try to remember from memory who I'd liked following, and restart my list. Curiously, though, I've noticed that my follower base has only strengthened, i.e people following me has gone up.

    I think I attribute that to the fact that by following people I care to follow I was no longer engaging in mass pleasing of Twitterers, if that all makes sense.
  • "Who you follow is a defacto endorsement of them. That’s why people get so up in arms when you unfollow everyone. It really makes them mad."

    That isn't what makes them mad.

    It's the unilateral and sudden end of a two-way relationship that brings disappointment:

    1) Person follows you because you interest them
    2) You follow back if you find them interesting
    3) One of you later unfollows, sending the message: "Actually, I no longer find you interesting"
    4) The other one feels rejected

    I suppose in these relatively early days of social media everyone sees things differently, but I am *definitely* not endorsing everyone I follow.
  • Anyone who thought they were in a two-way relationship when they were in a group of 90,000 is deluding themselves, sadly. I only hand followed a few thousand and have already refollowed most of those. Some I haven't refollowed because they were noisy and didn't stick on the topics I like to hear about. That's cool, friends change over time.
  • But do you really think that those 90,000 believed you *endorsed* them?
  • error in placing this. repost on the way
  • buckybit
    I agree Luke, and there's the problem of misconception so many people have: it is not an old-fashion 'relationship'. I assume people you know and think are important (private/business) you follow.

    Otherwise it's a choice of data-stream, signal-management represented by humans or services. Sounds cold - but that's what it is.

    People take it personal, but it has nothing to do with them as a person. They feel rejected, as if they were from now on friends with Scoble, Britney Spears or the Shaq - but they are not.

    I think the patterns of behavior of Veronica or MollyWood OR Scoble-followers and Britney-fanboys quite interesting.
  • Hi Robert Scoble :)

    You wrote: «I miss all Tweets while I sleep» You sleep? First news! I am a little disappointed ... ;-)

    I agree it's an endorsement and define a kind of "identity" or what ethologists call an Umwelt: the small world around you ou your "micro-society". This and the FACT nobodies can read thousands tweets from thousands tweeters. Reducing the number of tweeters to follow is a way to reduced noise and keep the signal. Everybody have the right to choose which message is a signal and which one is a noise (for himself).

    Have a nice day. :)
  • If you google "no i don't sleep" , who comes up?
  • :D Really funny: worth to be tweeted! :)
  • Brilliant...still chuckling RT @climenole :D Really funny: worth to be tweeted! :) "If you google "no i don't sleep" , who comes up?"
  • Thank you for you response.I agree with your statement that the folks that you follow are a reflection of who you are and how you define yourself or perhaps, if you think about it, in how a person want to "be perceived as defined" or how a person"would like to be defined." Leaving that, and with your suggestions, I believe the 2 or 3 accounts may be a way to go for some, to separate followers/following without a structured group set. And yes, we all have some interest and fascination which people who know us are not aware of thereby setting up another account allows of the freedom to stretch ourselves into other areas.Still begs the questions of as you aptly pointed out, you can't possibly read every tweet, which is not in itself a cause de mort. Social networking is a quarry of definitions, motives, ideas and revolutionary wonderful. The beauty is that there is no one answer as to who follows who. Social I believe again is the tag word, as is ego, acceptance,competition,love. Otherwise, what are we all doing tweeting stranger(in the true sense of the word) in 140 characters or less. And of yes, I think you should be following me. Caroline Halliwell @lacorbeau on Twitter of course
  • I follow people for different reasons but first and foremost, they must consistently provide me with valuable interesting info (your FOR ME thing). I have access to really smart people who are pushing the envelope on intellectual and creative levels. They also lead me to others that I may follow myself if they strike me as valuable. I learn amazing things every day and I am entertained/stimulated intellectually.

    I think that who follows me should not be emotionally important. I don't try to court any particular group/s and really don't bring any cutting edge information to the table that would interest those I follow. They are deep into arenas where I am a neophyte. I post things I think are funny/cool/interesting but really have no reputation/connections in this space

    I feel it is a privilege to have even cursory access to their discussions (even if they are crafted for public consumption). I read multiple sources outside the twitter/friendfeed world and that is underlying the information I get from" following".

    I will also say that whenever I have emailed someone with a specific question, they have been gracious enough to answer it, and answer it sincerely. The people I follow are generous with their time and I really appreciate that.
  • I watch both of you guys, and try to manage my account following what I have seen of the best of your examples of exemplary behavior.

    I have a small account yet, about 2300 followers and I follow 2100 or so. My challenge is that I look at the profile and link of everyone who follows me before I follow back. It takes time, but there are so many fascinating folks to listen to. I find amazing thinkers every day from the worlds of Science, Arts, Technology, etc.

    I enthusiastically block spammers.

    I can't and don't interact with everyone individually, but I have learned more in the past 4 months about everything from alternative energy sources to emerging technology than I certainly would have otherwise.

    I pop in when I can and read what I can. I engage with about 100 or so folks more than others. I keep the app open on my iPhone or browser and check as I do email. I use PowerTwitter, have tried Tweetdeck, co-teeet, Hoot Suite, numerous others...no one has all of the tools I'd like.

    I may use other tools to increase my efficiency.

    My biggest gripe right now is that I see spammers that seem to be grabbing random "real" tweets and auto-posting them in their stream as if they are their own. At first glance, the account looks legitimate, until you read through more carefully and realize the voice is disingenuous. Spammers waste time I might otherwise be using to engage more richly.

    I think however you do it, it has to work for you and allow you to bring value. That's it from me.
  • Using a tool like tweetdeck, I am surprised that it does not have a filter based utility that could be used to add names to a list and filter off of that list. You could eliminate all of the garbage for the stuff you really want to see.
  • It's funning back in april 2008 I wrote in a post "Where I believe that part of Scoble's secret to twitter is correct, the fact that the value in twitter is in who you follow, not in who's following you, I disagree that sheer numbers is the solution. Driving his argument to its logical conclusion we should all just follow the public timeline, like a giant IRC channel because that's how we see the most information and hence get the most value out of twitter. Where he once told me that all his followers are quailty twitter users, I don't think everyone out there is quality." (http://seanreiser.com/content/twitter-equation). I then went on to try and quantify the value of a twitter user with some sloppy math. It is interesting to watch robert change his opinion on this topic.

    Now, to be honest, I look at twitter like RSS, not email. If I'm not around, I don't have to read everything that came in, In atmosphere it's like walking into your local bar you're in the conversation while you're there but you don't need to stay up to date while you're not around you'll get caught up in time when you come back.
  • "Here’s the rub: who you follow defines you."

    Bullshit. What you say and do defines you. Who you follow is utterly irrelevant to who you are. Are you a different person because you now follow thousands of people less?

    Really, Robert, that's about the most stupid thing you've said.
  • Sorry, I totally disagree. Who I follow is a reflection of what I'm interested in and who I want to invite into my life. Now, if you use autofollowers that means "I want to talk to everyone, including people who waste my time, who have smelly breath, bots, spammers, criminals, etc."

    I've seen this over the past week. My Twittering has gotten better and I've gotten smarter and been more productive BECAUSE I selectively followed interesting people and mostly people I have met and/or know about.

    You can tell a LOT about me and what I'm interested in by looking through the 1900 people I'm following.
  • So are you really a different person now because of who you (don't) follow?
  • Define "person." I believe we are the product of our inputs. A Chemist is a Chemist because he studied Chemistry, not because he studied Politics. I'm seeing different things. I'm learning different things. I have less noise. I'm more productive. I am a different person.
  • Well now we're getting metaphysical :)

    A chemist is a chemist because he *does* chemistry, not because he studied it. Someone who studied chemistry but gets elected to high office is a politician, just as someone who studies politics but does chemistry is a chemist (albeit probably a bad one!)

    Likewise, being a person who listens is part of what you are - but what defines *you* is what you do on the basis of that listening, You're more than the sum total of your inputs. What defines you is your decisions and your actions.
  • Hi Robert:
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you used to recommend following tens of thousands? And you were until a week ago, so I don't know why your criticizing Chris Brogan for doing what you did until recently.

    And I disagree that following someone is an endorsement. It just means you're interested in their content. I follow competitors, for example, but that doesn't mean I endorse them. Good topic though.
  • George: because I recommended something three years ago does NOT mean that was a great recommendation. Even if it was, for the time, it might not be today. For instance, three years ago there were no spammers. No marketers. No late adopters on Twitter. Today you need a different strategy than you needed three years ago.
  • Fair enough. But do you think you would have been able to amass a following of more than 90,000 plus without having reciprocal following for all of those years? Many people have been able to create a lot of followers because of that approach.

    Because if we're all honest it's difficult to even follow a hundred people on Twitter - especially if they are posting 5-10 times a day (which why the grouping feature on FriendFeed is so valuable).

    This, I think, is an important question about how Twitter will be used in the future. And is there different ways of using Twitter if you are a company and an individual? So while you're recommending that individuals should not autofollow everyone - should companies still follow that practice?
  • George: I had 450,000 readers a month of this blog before I started Twittering, so, yes, I believe I would have. Over on FriendFeed I don't autofollow and I already have 46,000.
  • And I'd actually argue that the readership of your blog is far more engaged with you than that Twitter audience ever has been. What you write here gives a much better indication of your depth of thought than is expressed either on Twitter or FF.

    That's not to say "blog = good, Twitter/FF = bad", of course. They are all valuable. But in terms of how people engage with you, I think the blog is a level higher.
  • ruchit
    I like the 'F' and 'f' analogy.

    Twitter clients should automatically assign weight to twits I am RT and slowly those who are most important would be grouped high bold. and other can stay to be random
  • I only follow people that are of interest to me. I consider people that have been recommended by someone, people that I have met, people whose blogs I have found interesting over the years and people who start/engage in conversations with me.

    I look through the twitter stream of everyone I follow just to make sure.

    Also, every once in a while, I unfollow people that I think I made a mistake to follow.

    I never follow anyone expecting a follow back although I love seeing my follower numbers grow.

    I think both Chris Brogan and Scoble are right. It's really about how you want to use twitter.
  • Robert,
    You finally hit the right nerve for me where I finally understand something based off your "FOR ME" comments.

    First of all there are generally two types of people and you've heard it before - leaders and followers. People can be leaders in one facet of life and followers in other facets of life.

    In the world of the Internet and Internet technology you are a LEADER and I am a FOLLOWER.

    Since I started following you at Microsoft, I looked to you to bring me the goods and you delivered. Your focus was tight and there wasn't a lot of noise - the blog was generally where you led and we followed.

    With the expansion of your scope and the addition of FF and Twitter you were still finding tons of new stuff that could benefit a larger audience, but for me, all the likes and conversations created a lot of noise and I had to un-follow you on these sites and stick to your blog. You liked it more because you were able to have conversations with more LEADERS in IT.

    Of course for you, the blog isn't your main channel of conversation, but for a lot of followers that's all we need.

    The challenge I see for LEADERS now and moving forward is to be able to effectively communicate with other LEADERS and disseminate the information to their followers without a lot of noise.

    Us followers trust you and hope that you can find a way to keep us satisfied, cause as we all know, followers are a needy group.
  • pchaney
    Wow. Could you go through that one more time Robert? :-)

    I advise NEVER to auto-follow. Talk about becoming a mark for spammers. Add to that never auto-DM. Twitter is about as human a social network as they come, at least in my book. Benign conversations maybe. A place to meet people and start a relationship perhaps, but certainly one where real people can talk to other real people. To automate those processes seems disingenuous to me and makes a sham out of social media as a different marketing animal than the rest.
  • oh Robert, you used trick of Twitter sp@mmers: following many people and then unfollowing them. Bad boy!
  • mikecj
    I've got to say I disagree with a lot of what you say here Robert. I'm with Chris on this one, and I posted to that effect recently. Multiple accounts aren't necessary and it really doesn't matter if you miss a lot of the conversation - in the same way it doesn't matter if you're at a cocktail party and miss a lot of it. And no, when you follow people you are not endorsing them.
  • Totally agree Robert
    I suggested months ago that twitter remove the follow numbers, its spoils what is my favorite conversational tool and turns it into I am the prettiest girl in the class with the most friends.
    I have always stayed around a 4000 followers and followed 1000, after that you are not a user but a broadcaster.
    Some people like to use a megaphone but a telephone does me just fine.
  • Hi Robert, what comes to mind reading your blog/interactions is how hard it is to work on the two way "friending" stream. It comes partially down to the relevance of the facilitator(what is the role and interaction worth on FF vs Twitter vs FB?). And how can someone get authority in your dialog. If enough relevance and authority is produced by your contact he or she will always be found back on any new platform. On the other hand if you are in many patforms with large amounts of followers/friends(why don't we devide it in a more layered way btw..) it can be very hard to distinguish someone in the crowd which can prevent building up that authority and relevance. We had a short discussion about it last year on The next Web remember? http://vimeo.com/859427
  • lcammarosano
    Thanks for this. I came to similar conclusion a while back in a blog post called "I agree to talk while you are talking"
    I described the mad dash to get followers as a ponzi scheme of self obsession
    http://blog.homegain.com/blogging-and-social-ne...
  • lcammarosano
    Thanks for this. I had a similar thought in a blog post " I agree to talk while you are talking" in which I describe the mad mindless dash to gain followers as a Ponzi scheme of self obesssion http://blog.homegain.com/blogging-and-social-ne...
  • I've been using your strategy number 2. I've got several Twitter accounts that I use to follow subsets of my main account, divided in the main areas of interest for me (Japan tech, influencers, Asia tech, close friends, etc.). Some people might see that as a pain, but I don't want to rely on grouping without a standard (via applications that might disappear or might fall behind another more innovative one).

    It is interesting to note that Tweetie's main developer never added the grouping function on his Mac or iPhone app because of that and actually advises people to use multiple accounts.

    I use the same strategy on Facebook via lists (and on LinkedIn, to a point, with tags). It's not perfect as I haven't yet been able to check and sort the backlog of people I already connected with (I did that on Facebook, took me almost a full day, was planning to do it on FriendFeed but now reconsidering it since it's future is uncertain).

    On Twitter, it all comes back when I tried auto-follow for a few weeks in 2008, as I was thinking the follow back was a gesture of appreciation and politeness. It seems I'm now stuck as I can't find the time to go through the 2000+ people I follow.

    I could unfollow everyone and re-follow only the subsets that my other accounts are following, but I'm frankly afraid to lose some people, plus there are people I'm only remotely interested in that I wish to maintain in my list, while not seeing them on my stream all the time.

    And that's where the paradox lies for me and led me to use many twitter accounts: there are people I find worth following, but would only like to stumble upon from time to time and not having on my stream most of the time and I'm unwilling to create yet another account just for that.

    Anyway, thanks for your always-valuable view. Mine is slightly different, as you can see on my comment to Chris's blog entry: http://disq.us/1t3u
  • Fun reading. I am easy going, no rush.
  • robert, great post, made me think. its an important piece!
    thank you
  • Robert --- Thanks for these reflections on following and un-following.
    For most, it's difficult to make everyone they follow an endorsement because that requires a good deal of time. Kudos to you for hand-picking and creating a meaningful list, though.
  • Great reading! Thank you.
  • jobsearch4execs
    Still struggling with the point of a huge following if tweets are not read. No one has explained the ROI. I try to read mine, not all, just skimming and many are just RTs to keep active. Is twitter usage just a blind faith activity?
  • I still follow everyone back (nearly 20,000) in part because I would really have to get under 300 people to be able to follow everyone. I simply don't want to do that.

    Your point about search resonates, because that is one of the ways I Follow people:

    - Go to particular peoples' Twitter profiles. This is a select group of close friends/colleagues, or people i am interested in at a particular moment.
    - Searches- for hashtags, events and topics. Some (like "redsox") I'm just not going to follow a lot of these people. Others (like PodCamp and social media groups)tend to be a group of people I follow anyway, or people I want to
    - Everyone else-- I treat my "friends" stream as a public stream, but filtered slightly. This I glance at here and there, looking for serendipity and spotting trends.

    This is pretty much how I have been doing it since I passed 300 followers (my "double Dunbar").
  • That really is a great idea, with the Following and following. However, thats only on FriendFeed. (Yes, thats because its better.) Theres no listing system like that on Twitter! The only way to do that would to use TweetDeck or some other app, and use their Favorites list, or Group system.

    However, people like me aren't always geeking from home. I see the web interface a whole lot when I'm out and about. So, this wouldn't make sense at all!
  • Bonsoir Robert!
    I don't know if after your deep cleansing you still follow me or not and that is ok with me. I have the same issue than you have because we both want to know everything, listen to every single murmur. However and as PragueBob states, we do not have to hear every breath they take to get the full picture. Plus there are always DMs in case of emergency. Or other streams of consciousness!
    I try to remember Twitter is a party, and if you don't catch everything at first because the environment is too loud, you can always connect tomorrow in a quieter "salon de the" later!
    I never follow back blindly/ from the beginning I hand pick my people the same way I would choose my friends in real life. Sometimes, some cards are easier to hide when we cannot see each others, mistakes are made.
    C'est la vie!
  • it's easy you just need to be organized. Nice one Robert.
  • Ginger
    Of course who you follow defines you. I'm super new at this but that is surely a given.
  • I wrote a similar article about how the people you associate with define you. The fatal flaw to this is that many people online who try to appear holy are actually the spammers, fraudsters and people out to get us. My most meaningful online relationships are with normal people, not with the deelers of the world.
  • Keshav
    How can ANYONE listen to your gibberish?
  • I am following about 12,000 people now and that is a lot to keep up with.

    Obviously I don't know everyone of them but I get to know more of them daily so i am building a strong twitter network!

    Following 90,000 is a TON! I would probably have 50k to 100k updates if i were following that many!
  • Thank you, Robert, for sharing your strategies on Following. It's often said that "Experience is the best teacher." You've had an uncommon experience on Twitter and the lessons you've learned from that rich experience are helpful to those of us who are in the learning mode.
  • It's said that "Experience is the best teacher" and you, Robert, have had a very unique experience with Twitter. Thanks for sharing it.
  • I'm a toolbag so you don't have to. :-)
  • I'm a toolbag so you don't have to. :-)
  • Truthfully, I can at most only follow around 150-200 otherwise it's ridiculous to keep up with people.
  • Personally I like to interact with my followers, so I only follow people I actually have comments for.
  • Tamim
    This is ludicrous Robert. I follow a ton of people - you just need time.
  • very thanks for article sesli chat
  • paulvalach
    I have to agree with several on there that say they do not care if they miss a tweet or three or 100. I use Tweetdeck so I group a few folks, even the Arizona folks in my case have two groups. I also have a group that only has four people in it...these folks tweet a lot, Guy, Bill Austin, Brogan, Mayhemstudios. All four give me valuable tweets that I can at any point scroll through, see what I missed and click on links. I like that. But they need their own group otherwise they drown out the rest of the folks.

    There are others that if I catch it great, if not the world won't end...its only 140 characters. If its that important they know to call or send an email. Its like where should you be at this moment in time, I venture to say many of you are answering several places. So the places you are not at, you are missing something..gasp! Is the world going to end, nah..not yet anyway,

    Do I think that a follow is an endorsement? No way, I follow many people that I disagree with on a regular basis, and some cases I am not a fan of the person at all..but they do give good links, good information and well frankly the old adage "keep your friends close, your enemies closer" may apply. I follow to gather data and hopefully some information.

    I try to pass on things and keep what I had for lunch to a minimum. I wish there was a way to make groups so that where I am going, or that I need a plumber would be get to by Arizona folks, in the same topics. Sometimes you get on a roll on something that is clearly of significance to only the three or four people tweeting, yet those tweets go to all followers. While sometimes it is the day source of comedy, for the most part its dribble that takes away from needed to be seen tweets.

    In closing, is 10,000 to many? Probably, that's one big number... on the other hand if I have 10,000 followers or more, its a good way to get a message out, or maybe even ask for a vote or notice to something of importance...which is another topic. Thanks for reading if you got this far.
blog comments powered by Disqus
porno filmi porno porno izle porno izle Seks İzle,porno izle,sex izle Sex İzle porno izle perde türk pornosu