Whilst this article stands alone in its own right, it follows on from Smiffy’s Rules of Following. If you have not yet read this, I would suggest that you do so before returning to this text.
In the first article, I stated that:
Like fire and electricity, Twitter presents hazards if untamed; follow too many and/or indiscriminately, we risk information overload and excessive, unproductive, use of time.
Twitter has value, and I will justify this statement later in this article. Like many things of value, one needs to make a certain investment in order to obtain that value. Rather then the usual analogy using the likes of cars, football fields or Olympic swimming pools (none of which have much interest for me,) I will use a mining analogy instead. Consider gold. You have to prospect to find a suitable ore body, dig a big hole, take out the ore, refine it. Things we shouldn’t do include following the ore body when it becomes to dilute or awkward to get at to make it worth extracting. Yes, Twitter is like a goldmine; there is much of great value to be extracted, but we need to invest in prospecting, carting away spoil, and evaluating whether there really is enough gold in a particular place to continue delving for it. (I will no doubt be receiving comments from mining engineers saying that I’ve got this all wrong, but you can’t please everybody.)
My previous article was all about following promising seams – following being the active word. What about followers? (And here I will drop the analogy before some Slashdot reader comes up with witty remarks like “In Soviet Russia, gold seam follows YOU.”) Whilst we are carefully managing those whom we follow, our list of followers is steadily growing longer and longer. Does this matter? I believe it does.
The main reasons that I follow people on Twitter are that I either wish to interact with them in some way (business, social, combination of the two,) or that I regard them as a relevant/useful/interesting one-way information stream. In the latter case, it is more generally the case that the twitterer in question is the voice of a body corporate rather than anyone identifying themselves as an individual.
With the latter case only consituting a small percentage of those I follow, the rest of it is really about interaction – relationships.
Going back to this ever-growing list of followers, let’s look at those I choose not to follow back. Barring the obvious spammers whom I block immediately, who are these people who remain, and what should I do about them?
I had a follower notification today that persuaded me to revise my Rules of Following and, as a knock-on effect, write this article which has been pending now for quite some time. The reason that I was followed, I will go into in the section Attack of the Robots. For now, it suffices to say that I was followed by a dealer in ammunition. As in the stuff people put in guns so that they can shoot each other. I am not going to get into a debate about the pros and cons of guns and neither will I respond to the pro-gun trolls that so often pop up in cases like this. Sufficient to say, I was not happy about being followed by someone in the munitions industry and wondered exactly what I should do about it.
After a brief, internal, debate I decided that there were quite a few people on my followers list that, in some way, made me uncomfortable (to put it plainer: gave me the creeps,) or annoyed me for whatever reason. Whilst I am quite happy that some people may wish to read my ramblings but be too shy to interact I question why many followers follow me, other than in the hope that I follow them and get exposed to whatever product, service or scam that they happen to be peddling.
Up to this point, the only reason I had ever blocked anybody was because they were obvious spammers. Only today did I realise that blocking is not necessarily a spam-reporting mechanism.
As a result of today’s cogitation, I have decided to change the result of my “should I follow this person?” process from the simple follow/don’t follow to a triage: follow, don’t follow, block.
Smiffy’s Further Rules of Following
Having introduced the triage process, my criteria for those I will follow remain unchanged. The rest I will simply ignore (don’t follow) unless:
- I feel that their morals conflict with mine in a way I find to be unacceptable.
- I find them creepy.
- I find them annoying.
These I will block. Following is not a term I would use when the follower does not tend to interact; the term I use for this is ‘stalking’ and I do not relish the idea of being stalked.
What do I mean by creepy? In the ‘Evaluating a Profile’ section of my original article, part of my scoring system included negative points for:
- Creepy profile photos (really creepy, not just artistically creepy)
- Updates that make me feel uncomfortable (Hateful, bigoted, intolerant.)
These are what I have condensed into the ‘I find them creepy’ bullet-point above. I will expand on ‘Updates that make me feel uncomfortable’, having just read a few. I will most likely block anyone whose updates contain any significant evidence of:
- Excessive bigotry (I have yet to meet anyone who is not, in some way, bigoted.)
- The more unpleasant “isms” (racism, sexism, nationalism (that’s just non-specific racism,) etcetera-ism.)
- Aggression (by word or reported/threatened deed.)
- Intolerance of various things that don’t have their own “ism” words.
- What I consider to be excessive (or obsessive?) enthusiasm for beliefs in what, for want of a better term, I will call “the Unprovable”, whether it be religion, the “paranormal”, little green men or over-elaborate conspiracy theories. Belief is a fundamental part of human nature and can be the cornerstone of many peoples lives. When I hear nothing but a certain belief from somebody, or that belief gets interwoven into every subject, that I find creepy.
These ‘creepies’ are very much personal to me. However, everyone has their own ‘creepies’ (I may well be on some peoples lists) so I invite them to substitute their own when implementing their own Rules of Following.
If I were to list everything I have found annoying on Twitter, I would still be writing this next Michaelmas. Instead, I will single out Twitter users who:
- Tweet nothing but quotations.
- Tweet nothing but RGs. (RGs, or regurgitations, are like RTs, re-tweets, except that they are done gratuitously.)
- Tweet nothing but links that look suspiciously as though they have been pulled straight off someone else’s RSS feed.
- Add no genuine content of their own.
- Do not interact with others (no @replies) or interact without meaning (@replies for the sake of it, probably so they don’t get listed under the first part of this bullet point.)
- Any combination of the above.
Talk to Me!
Not so much a Rule of Following but a Rule of Wanting Someone to Follow You: If you decide to follow someone with whom you would like to interact, contact them to say “hi!” I sometimes miss new follower messages, so don’t be silent. Whilst you can’t DM (Direct Message) someone who is not following you, you can always start a tweet with @smiffy (if it’s me you’re wanting!) and I will see it in my ‘Mentions’ (as it is called on Accessible Twitter.)
There is probably little point in doing this for accounts with vast numbers of followers (generally ghost-written anyway,) but if you want to network, the best way to introduce yourself is to – introduce yourself! Be a talker, not a stalker!
On the flip-side, I try to make a point of sending a DM to all my new followers with whom I intend to interact. Just a little courtesy that can make the whole experience more pleasant for all.
Attack of the Robots
Where do all those Twitter followers come from? Many of the genuine ones (those wishing to interact) come as the result of #followfriday [mashable.com] tweets and reading what I call friend-of-a-friend tweets: @replies from those you follow to others unknown to you. There are also folk out there who use Twitter search to try to find like-minded people. And then there are the robots. Some robots are useful things, working tirelessly for the betterment of mankind. Others are Evil Robots, close relatives of the Spam Harvesters that haunt the web.
Simply by including certain terms in your tweets, you can attract the attention of the Evil Robots and their Dastardly Masters. In fact, if you want to pick up a large number of worthless followers in a short time, just include some of the following terms in your tweets and watch the followers come flooding in!
- SEO (Search Engine Optimisation.) I am glad I am not in this industry as it seems to be getting a somewhat unwholesome reputation.
- Affiliate Marketing. This appears to be a modernisation of the old “Make $$$ in your spare time!!!” advertisements. And they’re on Twitter, looking for you.
- MLM (Multi Level Marketing.) See Affiliate Marketing. In fact, I’d steer clear of the term ‘marketing’ altogether. If you need to use it, find a code word like “sheepdip” that you can share with your contacts.
- Jesus Christ. Yes, it seems that some Christians are giving Evil a shot and are in relentless pursuit of anyone who happens to mention JC, in any context. (I would not be at all surpised if other Christians don’t get annoyed with these mavericks.) Curiously enough, I can only attribute one follower to a tweet in which I used the word ‘atheism’. He didn’t seem dastardly at all; I even followed him.
I have, unfortunately, mislaid some of the notes I was making on this subject during a fun game of Twitter-bot baiting. Those above seem to come out tops though. Observation suggests to me that those that follow on the tips of Evil Robots tend to have some of the keywords in their Twitter profiles.
And the reason I was being followed by an ammunition seller? As part of a tweet (actually an @reply to a contact,) I commented on the night’s rainfall: “… 18.9mm since midnight.” As I am a very heavy user of regular expressions, it only took a couple of seconds to work out that the Evil Robot in question was looking for, amongst other terms, “9mm” – a common ammunition calibre.
There may be people out there using robots (the non-Evil kind) for what I would deem acceptable purposes, like watching out for mentions of a specific brand or business. The Masters of Evil Robots just want volume; they will latch on to a term or fragment of term and then follow (or stalk) you indiscriminately. With my Further Rules, these guys are going to get blocked.
Pruning for Health & Increase in Fruit
To mix metaphors/analogies, your gold mine will be healthier and yield more fruit with regular pruning. In the previous article, I recommended regular review of those you are following. Pruning your followers list – a repeat of the triage process – should help keep the list manageable. You may even find the odd gold nugget that you decided not (or forgot) to follow previously.
Note: people who follow you who then get suspended (mostly spammers) will still appear in your followers list. Having the list full of dead accounts gives all the more reason for a regular prune, until such time as Twitter fixes this issue.
It was probably the lack of a ‘Report Spam’ button on Twitter that caused me to regard ‘Block’ as having this function. I now regard it as a ‘No, thank you, not today’ control instead – and I would advise others to do likewise. Followers, like Following can be kept to manageable levels. Remember, you want to own a gold mine, not just a spoil heap.
I would like to dedicate this article to all those who said nice things about or re-tweeted my last one, and especially those brave souls who decided to adopt my Rules. Special thanks to those to whom I promised a follow-up and have waited so patiently. This one’s for you!
TinyURL for this page: http://tinyurl.com/lvavzd
Updated 2009-06-09: added sub-section ‘Creepy 101’, revised ‘Jesus Christ’ bullet point in section ‘Attack of the Robots’ after I realised I was being followed by a bot-wielding atheist.