Dear Wanna-bes, Your Twitter Stardom is Coming to an End
One of the most controversial practices widely used to build up influence on Twitter is now cause for account suspension, according to a message on the Twitter developers email list from a company support team member.
Using third party software to systematically add a large number of social connections each day, then break those connections with anyone who doesn't reciprocate, is a method used by some number of Twitter users to create an appearance of legitimacy for subsequent new connections. Twitter's Doug Williams said last night that such practices will now risk account suspension. Some users will be unhappy about the policy, many others will probably applaud it. There are valid arguments on both sides of the position.
The issue was raised last night by developer Jesse Stay, one of the most consistently outspoken critics of Twitter policy and creator of the service SocialToo. Twitter's Doug Williams replied simply that "There is no limit to the number of unfollows. Using software to constantly churn followers in a repeated pattern of following and unfollowing will however risk suspension."
Critics have long complained that many people on Twitter have artificially inflated their social network despite producing no meaningful content on the site. The use of friend-inflation software has put unscrupulous marketers in particular in a position to broadcast their messages to a much wider network of people than they have "earned." It's been effective because a quick glance at the friend-to-followers ratio on someone's Twitter account profile page has been the easiest way to judge the legitimacy of a new social connection. Getting a new connection and evaluating whether it's worth reciprocating costs time and energy - so most users don't appreciate impersonal automated social connections.
Image: SocialMediaDouchebag.net
Combine the ego-boost of having a stranger "follow" you with the fact that lots of other people are already following them back, and new users are often happy to reciprocate a new connection. It must be a good party I've been invited to, you might say, look how many other people are already here. All too often users end up feeling fooled into attending the Web 2.0 equivalent of a multi-level marketing pitch session.
There's a widespread belief that "followers" on Twitter ought to be earned by a user's history of high-value contributions to conversation on the platform. The ability for users to discover other high-value people took a hit last month when Twitter made public replies from one user to another invisible for people not following the user being replied to.
Media hacker Dave Winer argued this morning that Twitter itself is the biggest offender. By sending hundreds of thousands of people to follow accounts on its Suggested User List, Winer contends that the company engages in the same kind of unfair artificial inflation of follower numbers for a select group of accounts that haven't necessarily earned that high profile with high quality content.
Users of automatic friend inflation software seem particularly offensive, though. They are often the most craven attention-seekers on the service, sometimes self-proclaimed "social media experts" who claim general legitimacy based on their large number of followers.
On The Other Hand
Not everyone will be happy with the Twitter policy of suspending accounts that have grown with the help of software. To draw a more favorable analogy, how different is this from automated promotional activities in other media?
No one is forcing people to follow-back accounts that friend them unexpectedly and have a lot of followers already. Shouldn't savvy users be responsible for evaluating an account's content quality themselves? When a social network has tens or hundreds of millions of users, is it not legitimate for businesses to use automatic methods to reach out to them?
A discussion of the policy would seem to be a good idea, instead of an arbitrary suspension of accounts based on Twitter HQ's apparent belief about how the service ought to be used. There is a small cottage industry formed already around "friend acquisition software" for Twitter. On one hand, it's an old-world business person's dream come true - just throw a little money at some software and gain thousands of friends! On the other hand, Twitter is an important new communication platform that represents the democratic and meritocratic hopes of many innovative people. It's also just a nice place to hang out and talk with friends, without someone trying to sell you things. Should we all be left to our own devices for building status, if that's important to us, on Twitter?
You might like following the ReadWriteWeb crew on Twitter. We think you're interesting and many of your friends already follow us! You can find ReadWriteWeb on Twitter, as well as the entire RWW Team: Marshall Kirkpatrick, Bernard Lunn, Alex Iskold, Sarah Perez, Frederic Lardinois, Sean Ammirati, Doug Coleman Dana Oshiro, Steven Walling, Jolie O'Dell and Lidija Davis.
Twitterrific icon used with permission from The Iconfactory.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Never understood the thinking of following someone just because they follow you. I follow people with a high signal-to-noise ratio. Whether or not they are following me does not enter into the equation.
Posted by: Andy Roth
|
June 19, 2009 9:48 AM
Good news. I get gamed all the time with this nonsense, usually by the same 30-50 accounts, and I've even taking to compiling a list of the worst-offending 'systems' on Twittercism.
Incidentally, while I realise Dave has been all over the SUL for a couple of months now, I was voicing essentially the same concerns about the benefits of being on the SUL back in March, and at various points thereafter. Just sayin'. ;)
"...Should we all be left to our own devices for building status, if that's important to us, on Twitter?"
Exactly, file in the same folder marked "power corrupts" with the killing off of allowing users to control their @ preferences.
I hate slimy auto-friending types just as much as anyone else, but this Draconian approach Twitter is taking is just as wrong as killing off user choice @'s was.
...Fonzie just put his other water ski on.
P.S. "eleventy-billion"?
3 cheers for this policy. Most of the software is created by leech-like internet marketers looking to make a quick hit and run buck. Many of them don't even understand how to use Twitter. I applaud this move.
...oh yeah I forgot;
"There is no one right way to use Twitter." - Biz Stone
Apparently there is.
I am so much happy if stardom will come to an end because it should be, and these days twitter is suspending many accounts this is also very good, there should be a few rules for everyone.
While this policy has both it's good and bad points, Dave Winer is correct in his statement that twitter itself is the worst offender here and the suggested user list is not only inherently prone to (but may already be) being corrupted / abused.
If twitter is going to dictate how we accumulate followers, then they need to stop recommending followers without publishing clear guidelines as to how and why these people get on the list.
Also, they need to take an active interest in recommending "ordinary" twitter users.
As one of the luddites who still insists on reviewing each new follower before deciding whether to follow them back, this won't really affect me. Some of the spammier users, however, are likely to be very annoyed.
I started on Twitter by MASS following people. I got some followers, but I quickly realized I cared nothing for what they had to say. Twitter works so much better for connecting with people with similar interests.
It's about time that Twitter got rid of the spammers. If you're not getting your followers legitimately then you don't need to be on Twitter.
Doesn't this problem get solved when users decide to either protect updates or forgo the auto-follow? I say we wait for Guy Kawasaki to weigh in. (Holy Kaw!)
@Marshall While I'm a huge proponent of growing your Twitter following organically, I completely agree with Dave Winer - Twitter is the biggest offender...and ReadWriteWeb is one of the biggest beneficiaries of Twitter's "suggested users" strategy - so I'm interested in hearing Richard's thoughts on this here in this post. Check out this screenshot of the "followers" list for @rww (ReadWriteWeb's Twitter account) that I took just now. What you'll see is a massive list of NEW Twitter users that have followed @rww during the account set up process...they havent even been using Twitter long enough to upload an avatar and they are following you... http://twitpic.com/7taov While I love ReadWriteWeb, you have to agree that the @rww follower numbers are severely inflated by Twitter's suggestion mechanism...of the most recent 100 users following @rww, only 34 of them have uploaded avatars. If these people are JUST getting into Twitter, I seriously doubt that they're even aware of what ReadWriteWeb is. More screenshots to come......
When I get the email, "So and so is now following you," I look at their profile then recent tweets and if they are useful interesting, I follow back. If not, I block. Simple.
This policy would be fantastic! I'm so tired of getting spammy followers. A tweet for both personal and professional means, and my work twitter is for a web-centric business consulting firm (@businessways) and I hate the people that claim to have such a big following when all they've done is cheat. Most of their updates have zero substance anyway. I recently write a blog about this too... check it out!
http://confessionsofahopefulprofessional.blogspot.com/
This is an excellent policy by Twitter. They aren't saying you can't use automated services to increase the number of people you follow. What they are saying is the churn some people are using to juice their numbers isn't helpful to the sustainability of the system as a whole.
I have had users follow me one day, unfollow the next, follow me again, then unfollow and on and on trying to prompt me to follow them back. As a general rule, I'll let anyone follow me as long as his profile looks somewhat like a real person but that pattern of activity leaves a bad taste in people's mouths.
It's important to keep in mind that Twitter is working hard to keep the service pure for it's early adopter population while making it more attractive for the mass market. Imagine how your Mom would react if she were subjected to the follower hoarded tactics such as this.
Great call Twitter!
@MikeLangford
Screenshots comparing the growth of @rww @techcrunch and @timoreilly (see below)...what you'll see is the day that Tim was added to the suggested users list (his account was added as a suggested user after @rww and @techcrunch were). I personally think Tim is a human RSS feed and has been adding value to Twitter longer than almost anyone, and his growth rate, which was organic until recently, was equal to or greater than that of @rww before Twitter stepped in and added any of you. The data tells a clear story. I remember the day when @rww only had 5K followers ...that was only a few months ago. Now you're at almost 180K. How do YOU guys feel about this??
http://twitpic.com/7tf7t
Isn't Winer talking about something different from what Twitter's talking about? As I understand it it's the CHURN that will risk banning, not merely adding tons of followers. The Suggested User List does promote a set of people who might not have earned that following, but it's a different beast than autofollowing and unfollowing if I don't follow you back.
I agree with Winer that Twitter is the biggest offender with the suggested user list. If you aren't careful when creating an account, you automatically follow some of these users. There should at least be a greater rotation of suggested users - we don't need to see how far @aplusk can go with his 2.3 million followers. We need more meritocracy for this list and it needs to be culled/updated frequently.
@clatko
Isn't that juvenile punk Ashton really responsible for inflated follower hype? Really, some of us don't care about celeb tweets! TwitSpam is a drag though.
@Rick - I think it's obvious that @davewiner is talking about the same thing Twitter is talking about. In his post he says "Twitter wants to stop users from doing what they themselves do so much better. http://bit.ly/EMbpJ" .
To be clear, I'm NOT saying I don't think that @rww should be on the SUL (ReadWriteWeb is my favorite tech community on the web and you consistently add value to Twitter). I'm saying that @rww (like all users on the SUL) benefit from artifical follower inflation. This is the core of what Dave seems to have a problem with - it's artificial inflation of the numbers that, in some sense serve as "social proof" to the social web.
@Rick I agree with the fact that the "Churn" has a negative impact on the social ecosystem. But that was never up for debate, was it?
I'm glad to hear this - excellent news!
I'm SO sick of the "I'm an internet marketer SEO make bajillions online" folks who are clearly not interested in following me for any authentic reason.
Long overdue.
I applaud twitter for this.
"There are valid arguments on both sides of the position."
No. There aren't. There are usability and anti-spam concerns on one side. There are rationalizations on the other.
Winer might think they're the same, but Twitter's suggested users function is genuinely aimed at engaging new users with some trusted content generators. That's usability (and retention)
On the other side, you have spammers who are quite good at suggesting themselves. From Twitter's perspective these folks are harming usability and retention.
These are entirely consistent positions.They could be mistaken, but they're consistent.
I think this is great news. I am very close to not using twitter because of all the automated twitter follows I get everyday. This is a good move by twitter and I say it needed to be done or twitter would soon fad away due to the overwhelming auto twitts.
Dear Wanna-bes, Your Twitter Stardom is Coming to an End http://bit.ly/wSsiA (auto-friending clampdown) [from http://twitter.com/marshallk/statuses/2240386513]
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick
|
June 19, 2009 1:38 PM
Until I see enforcement of this, I will view it as a PR move.
Twitter - the ultimate 'it's all about me' resource. I thought web 2.0 is all about giving.
Certifiable douche bag at no cost! Awesome.
This is fantastic news. The reason Twitter is so valuable to me is because I choose who I follow carefully, and block useless followers religiously. Otherwise it's a big cyberspace garbage pile.
Absolutely applaud this. Crap services like Hummingbird create a spam kudzu in Twitter. And there's a big difference in being on a suggested user list, which is just that, suggestions that people can choose to follow or not ... and people using automated software that auto-follows/unfollows 24/7. That software has ruined Twitter for me. Good riddance. And I will smile thinking of the users of this crap, and the creators as well, screaming in panic.
Great move.
Now ban the Big followers who just spam everyone elses achievements and posts all day long and never reply to your replies to them.
Oh and auto ban if your tweet contains the word coffee.
I am unhappy with these automated tools as they create a two tier system of those people who develop Twitter organicly and those who clearly do not. Rgds Vince
Churning is when you add followers and then remove them immediately, just to get that notification email sent. There will always be a need to mass delete followers that 1 don't follow you back, and 2 are spamming you.
All you people that don't care about followers should turn off your notification so you are not notified... then it's like spammer don't exists. It is when you follow them back is when they become annoying.
@Marshall - I agree. When it comes to the current practices of gaming twitter "There are usability and anti-spam concerns on one side. There are rationalizations on the other." Well said. Their decision is a good one and they seem to be implementing it in a way that will improve Twitter's overall experience for everyone. Kudos to them, it's about time. As I said earlier, there's no doubt that the "churn" is bad for the social ecosystem (creates spam etc). What muddies the issue is: A) that there are no official guidelines or policies that lead to a user's inclusion or exclusion on the SUL, B) that the SUL is not based on a crowdsourced, democatized model, making it less credible, and (most importantly) C) the obvious drastic effects the SUL has on the overall ecosystem, and the questionable motivations of Twitter (which is what the core issue is) I think Dave Winer correctly called a spade a spade and took issue with the fact the justification for the action was framed as "cracking down on artificial following inflation"...
It's funny, but I have no problem with spammy followers. I only follow back people who I know or who look interesting when I read their feed. I have had few spammy followers ever. Am I just lucky?
It's good to know that Twitter have become aware of the damage done to a social networking community as a whole by the use of automation in that way.
Just in time, I think, as it has become ridiculous lately. I don't block people unless they are definitely spammers - I just don't follow back if I'm not interested but the tweeter is, or at least appears to be, a human. Even so, I have to block at least a third of the people who follow me every day and have noticed up to 15 accounts with identical tweets in them several times lately.
It has been sad to watch people I used to get along with on Twitter become infected with the human cattle-herding mentality (I ask if they shouldn't join Critter instead) and then stop tweeting with people in favour of tweeting at them. Having artificially increased their following by many thousands, they suddenly think they are popular and important and start playing the role of 'leader' to their followers!
Frankly, anything that reduces artificiality in social networking has to be a good thing!
I find this is very interesting topic being a marketer and having been on Twitter for the last 19 months.
I know of more than a few people who utilize those software friending programs to really build large followings, but if you randomly scroll through their following list (and those software programs they used/use are why we have Twitter limits nowadays of 1000 new peeps) you see a large portion of the people that are following these self-titled "gurus" are spammy accounts, porn accounts, etc...in other words, NOT real people!
So I really can't put much value in their account...or their tweets.
I don't know if the numbers of who is following/being followed should really be of importance, because like the title of this post means...it's a matter of time...
...those peeps will fade away because their spammy actions won't be producing money.
The people who remain and have legitimate followings of active tweets/retweets are the ones who are giving value, who are connecting with people...online and off.
Timothy
Well maybe it's been said before here (too busy writing an auto-friend-ing Twitter app...j/k) But you if you use these types of applications to find the RIGHT kind of followers, then you won't have a problem with the spamming you get. I unfollow tons of people everyday, but I do this manually by watching the tweets. Some people are so dumb that half their links are busted, and I can't stand the people that are promoting the shady affiliate garbage like Google Adwords Link posting crap. I delete these people and block them forever. I do use Twollo, but I use it to find the right kind of people that are looking for the honest and trustworthy information they may be seeking. How else are you going to find these people if this type of software is banned? It's just like anything else on the market that allows automation. Some people will misuse the power and some people will use it the correct way. To ban all software from everyone is truly "draconian" as someone previously mentioned. I disagree with the banning of this type of software. I have forged great online relationships by finding people this way.
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. You can unfollow spammers. You can block spammers. You can block affiliate marketers who market software to gain new followers. So what is the deal with people who gripe about spammers? You have the tools to rid these guys out of your timelines. If you manage your followers then you should be able to have a clean list of people you are following without people spamming you.
There is one thing that I have noticed about spammers. There are a lot of people who like them (except the spammers who DM everyone - people don't like those kind of spammers). Do a little experiment. If you notice someone you suspect as a spammer, do a search on the "shortened" link he is advertising. Chances are there is more than one account spamming the same link. Check how many followers are following each account. I know of 1 spammer with over 10 accounts with over 2000 followers in each account. That tells me that there are people who want this information.
This is a good practice, I think. I use some automated systems myself, like auto-follow function, as it became too much work to check everyone's profile to decide whether or not to follow. So now I unfollow if the content a user submits is not to my liking. It's easier than following one by one. In other words, I'll give a follower a chance.
However, I know that autofollowing people will get me right on the spamming line. I do appreciate Twitter taking steps to stop the abuse of the system. Twitter is popular for a reason, and it can fail for a reason. Having your account spammed every 2 seconds will definitely lead to failure, as will checking accounts manually only to find 30 spammer accounts a day trying get you to follow.
Twitter is like a breath of fresh air on the Social Media scene. I have been on it for just a few weeks now and I have met several interesting people. It is a platform to network with people you would like to meet in real life.
KZ
Thank goodness someone will be doing SOMETHING about this problem! I am sick and tired of these people spamming me and artificially "following" me. I don't need trillions of marketers following me, sending out their stupid announcements, sales pitches, garbage sales listings, and quotes for the day... This is not a competition or a popularity contest. We are not in elementary school, folks. This is about quality, not quantity, and about connecting with people on a REAL level, not bots automating our computer while we are out at some coffee bar drinking latte's.
Lets get real.While we are at it, we can start thinking about reviving the economy with some creative thinking.Like changing the way working hours should be for different job descriptions and services in this country.ie postal, banking,schools, etc..
Twitter...why not set up that when you follow someone, you cannot unfollow them for a week. Wouldn't that put a kink in the "effectiveness" of the Twitterspam?
Also while you're at it, NO ONE can have more than 200 followers with less than 20 posts. Tired of seeing people following 2000 and having 1500 followers with 2-3 (or worse NO) posts. Unless you're the Dalai Lama, no is is THAT interesting in 3 posts/updates.
But if they start suspending accounts that use auto-follow software, then all those geniuses who create and market the "eleventy billion followers in 12 seconds" software will go out of business, and then I'll no longer receive 75 DM's each day from Twitter "experts" with 62 followers who want to teach me how to grow my following on Twiiter.
Not only will this make me lonely, but who will I then turn to for Twitter wisdom?
BTW, what's the HTML tag for the Sarcasm font?
The above link is intended as a joke. :)
This issue is as clear as what's happening in the United States right now:
Twitters's new policy is like socialism -- we'll decide how you should manage this situation and force it on you whether you like it or not.
Jeremey Pair's response, "When I get the email, 'So and so is now following you,' I look at their profile then recent tweets and if they are useful interesting, I follow back. If not, I block. Simple.", is like capitalism.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." -- Margaret Thatcher.
"Friend acquisition software"? Talk about euphemisms! I like "follower churn" better! I think everyone has experienced Internet marketers doing this. There is one well-known Twitterer who followed & unfollowed me 4 times within one month until I got tired of it & blocked them.
A rule of thumb I use in deciding to follow someone is that they should have more messages than followers. It, of course, doesn't work with celebrities and some people but if someone has 10,000 followers & 100 messages, it is likely that they used automated software or has manually and aggressively followed/unfollowed people to build their follower numbers.
I supposed it is just a business tactic except that many people think someone's worth can be assessed by a person's follower number. My favorite example of this is @NicheTitans which has over 36K followers even though they've only posted 700 times & haven't been active for the past 2 months. Not that their Tweets weren't valuable but their follower number was clearly artificially boosted.
It only bothers me because if you take the time to evaluate new followers, it is irritating to have the same people follow, unfollow, rinse & repeat. Either follow or don't but enough of this auto-following game-playing.
For all the kvetching, Twitter is a free service from which I gain value at no direct expense to myself. So long as it is not crippled beyond a useful level, I do not begrudge it's management the right to adjust their policies to suit the perceived needs of the service.
My son is here and so are a couple of my IRL friends. Moreover, this is a place where I can nurture some of my web-only relationships ... this week I was offered an opportunity to guest post on an "A-List" blog. I'm thinking the offer over -very- carefully, as I'm not certain that my own blogs are fit for that sort of traffic. In particular, the one linked to from my name (above) is more of an intimate discussion / thought-provoker than a '10m hits a day' money maker.
@BillinDetroit
I do not know there was software out there like this. I do not follow everyone, because some are not talking about anything that is worthwhile. For instance a young lady is following me, she as one update about a contest she won! Want does that have to do with me? I have never stated that I entered any contest ever so what was the point. Just simply watching a persons activity may give you insight to whether you want to follow them or not. And that is still questionable!
Very educational posting, but esp. loved the graphic and tweeted it. Keep up the good work and keep down those damn follwer #s harvesters.
Regards
Imran
Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imrananwar/
Follow Me: http://www.twitter.com/imrananwar
FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=582866154
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/imran
I wondered why I had a ton of new followers that unfollowed me after I would follow them back. In retrospect, these tweets were for things like "internet marketing." Makes sense.
1 2 Next