-
Website
http://socialmediarockstar.com -
Original page
http://socialmediarockstar.com/dear-web-celebrity-who-never-follows-anyone-back -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
In my case, I have nearly 3200 followers on Twitter. I currently follow about 400 people back. Mostly that's because I can't handle following that many people, and I don't want to take on more than I can handle, Twitter becomes useless to me then. And while every day I gain and lose some followers, overall my follower numbers have risen steadily since I joined Twitter.
I'm not convinced that following people back is the best way to get the "social" out of Twitter. Seems to me it's more important to engage in conversation, especially through @replies (both responding to @ messages I get, and in sending @ replies, including retweets).
I discover a lot of interesting people to follow by tracking hashtags. Most of them never follow me back, and I don't really care.
But that's just me. My remarks indicate only my own preference.
- Amy Gahran
Everyone has got a way to use the technology that works for them. Personally I just follow people and set up several columns to filter the flow (Colorado friends, SEO people, interesting people). I unfollow or block only the people who are annoying / spammy. Twitter becomes exponentially more interesting to me and I don't find its usefulness diminishes at all. It's even more personal because I filter it for exactly who or what I'm most interested in.
I guess I just get fed up because there are people I'd like to interact with... but I know that they'll never reply or follow me as a matter of habit or policy, so I feel distant.
Here's how:
http://socialmediarockstar.com/follow-more-people
Your philosophy is a similar to a communism. Everyone get the same amount, regardless of the quality of what they produce. "Everyone's opinion matters! You are all important!" When in reality, that's just not the case.
Some people's opinions matter more than others. That can be for a variety of reasons, but they're all valid. In our world there are listeners, and there are speakers. Some people just have more interesting things to say.
People may choose to follow you for a variety of reasons– they're a fan of your blog, your art, your product, your thinking, etc. But I don't believe that obligates you to listen to thier voice.
I think many people join twitter just to listen, and its perfectly all right if you don't follow them back. Besides, how can you really listen when you follow so many people?
By default, everyone that I follow back because they are following me don't get into a group. I do, however, keep an eye on the unfiltered folks and as soon as someone says something that catches my eye, they go into a group called "of interest." Then, of course, I have groups for friends, celebrities, etc.
JesseNewhart@freshlar How To Effectively Follow 15000+ People On Twitter: http://bit.ly/13rmog
Marc Littmann
Marc Littmann Wedding and Portrait Photography
www.littmannweddings/blogspot.com
There's the celeb who follows many because "I can learn from everyone" or "Everyone's a potential lead" or it's the Twitter math game, but never @s you even if you attempt a conversation.
There are those who don't follow you but will reply to @s. There's the self-serving RT. The linking machine. The hashtag addict. The effusive. The too-personal. The clueless. The look-at-me.
It's pretty colorful, and amongst all that color are the primary colors. So value is available, you just have to pick & choose.
I know the exact feeling... and I think it demonstrates that blogosphere is a non-local, quantum, collective intelligence. You and I are feeling the same tides and processing the same universalinformation... sometimes simultaneously, sometimes a thought fragment in one of us will trigger an epiphany in another. Blogs are the long form, Twitter for the snippets.
I dig it your observations... I've seen many of those archtypes.. and it's got me thinking into new territories.
Thanks for spuring me on and participating in the conversation!
Who needs those guys, right?
Social networking is called networking for a reason. I expect anybody following me to be reasonably engaged in what I have to say... maybe he or she will respond, retweet, get involved somehow.
I'm following around 230 because that's how many I think I can pay real attention to. I want those engagements to be quality interactions. It's networking. It's no longer networking if I follow hundreds or thousands of people, can't keep up with them, and never interact. As some of them tweet less, I'm adding more people who interest me.
I can't find a good reason to follow someone who doesn't interest me. My time is valuable! And who interests me may change from day to day... nobody should be insulted. :)
As for a celeb, take @eddieizzard or @jimgaffigan. They don't follow many people. But ask a question @ them, and they're likely to respond to you. @jimgaffigan RT'ed something I said about him yesterday.
So they are reading and responding where they want to respond. I think that's social, it's media, and it's networking.
Celebrities are distant. That's what makes them celebrities and not neighbours or co-workers. :) They have the right to keep distance, and choose who they "let in."
- @aswas aka Debbie :)
Cool points, but I always kinda figured the social web changed the rules a little bit. In the past, there'd be no possible way I could have a connection with Obama or an elite top blogger... but Twitter makes it really easy to connect both ways - if both sides want to.
Over the years I have been able to "network" and make connections with thousands of people on various social media sites without paying attention to every single one of their updates. I follow the flow for long enough and their patterns and personalities emerge... and the necessary connections get made.
I signed up for Todd Barry's Facebook fan page, but he didn't ask me to be his Facebook pal. :) Bands who "friended" my MySpace account probably are not sitting home wondering what's new in Debbie's life today. :)
I think we're expecting too much of these busy people. Yes, they're not much without fans, but that doesn't mean they have to be my bestest pal. :)
I think we have taken the idea of "friending" to a place where our expectations are a little out of whack.
I know what you mean about real celebs. They really are busy. Al Gore's got a planet to save. Obama's got a financial mess on his pants.
This post is directed at "social media marketer celebs" and blogger who have a modest following but try so hard never to follow anyone back, lest they look like a commoner.
Can't name names, but they're everywhere.
Dani Nordin, aka @danigrrl
Didn't know that.
I don't think I even follow him on Twitter, but I listed him because he's a famous "web celeb" and advocate of following people back (at least as a gesture.)
Problem with Kawasaki is that he's so contradictory. He advocates following as many people back as you can, but doesn't interact properly (ghost tweets for majority of feed).
He also suggests Twitter is a great business tool but more than 90% of it is inane chatter so it's a waste of time? And that he doesn't think it's unethical to ghost tweet (even though he never disclosed it until called out on it).
Just seems there are some truly great "rockstars" around more deserving of your recommendation. :)
Thanks for the insight.
Not smart either.
Getting a follow from him? Meh, who cares? I think he's bigger in his own head than he is on the web (hence the insecure defensiveness of a response to a tweet by someone with less than 200 followers!).
Thank you so much~! Glad to connect with you!
Jamie
Thanks for subscribing and good luck with Tweetdeck. Hit me up on Twitter if you have any problems (@brettborders) and I will help ya!
keep up the good work we are watching @celebritymonkey
I always figured that the web would change the way celebrities interact with their flock...
But human nature doesn't change just because technology does.
Small-time web celebrites seems to use it to re-enforce the same kind of distance and exclusivity that was necessary offline.. but seems to be no longer required.
add me and ill respond to everyone! ;p
twitter.com/shantkiraz
Added! Thanks for stopping by.
I am taking note of how every one is presenting their sites
Impressive stuff
keep up the fine work
Thanks so much... I'm glad you like. There are a lot of blogs out there so it's important to make yours distinct and easy to read, or else people won't take you seriously no matter what you have to say.
hope to see you back again!
I agree. Everyone is free to use Twitter how they see fit... including using it as a one-way broadcast medium... but it just doesn't look that hip when "web celebrites" use it that way.
Unlike @dashboardchris - seriously, what's that account all about?
i just can't follow that many people. it gets cluttered and then i miss important tweets from my good friends.
following 150-ish people is plenty for me.
You should use it in a way that works best for you.
However, if you want to try and follow more people, it's easy to add your good friends into a group and not miss a single tweet from anyone important, while being able to skim everyone elses.
Here's how:
http://socialmediarockstar.com/follow-more-people
First, why should I follow you back? Are you interesting? Just because you find me interesting is no reason to get petty because I don't find you interesting. If a WebCeleb followed all 15K followers he had, he'd get... well, he'd get 15K users worth of updates -- ie a flood of stuff that would drown out any use he might have had for Twitter except as a broadcast medium. All because Twitter's filtering tools SUCK, since basically it boils down to "everything please" or "no thanks".
If you are interesting, I might follow you if I think I might have a conversation with you.
Second. If you are interesting but I don't think I would have a conversation with you, or I suspect that due to your 15K followers you'd never see my pitiful attempts at conversation, I'll throw the RSS feed of your tweets into my Google Reader. That way I'll see what you say, if you are interesting, and I can dump your RSS feed easily if you get boring.
So.
In conclusion: be interesting, and don't get stuck in the trap of equivocating "number of followers" with "importance".
Look to Star Trek for guidance: "Don't try to be a great man, just be a man and let history come to its own conclusions."
And yes, I just went there.
I think of Star Trek as having a lot to do with this celeb conundrum. Here's why:
On the Enterprise, they're traveling though the cosmic universe but they still maintain a very human, terrestrial consciousness with a penchant for drama.
On Twitter, people (celebrities) have the ability to be generous and effortlessly connect with people... at no real cost to themselves, but they still are bound up in the ideals of appearing elite, distant and influential.
"celebrities have the ability to be generous and effortlessly connect with people... at no real cost to themselves" I disagree with this strongly.
Just put yourself in their shoes for a second. Imagine you're a celebrity with hundreds of thousands of followers. The cost to you is spending their entire day "effortlessly" connecting with people, as you put it.
Do you realize they would stop doing what made them a celebrity and do nothing but twitter?
Just a thought.
She was running around twitter begging for followers.
What's her Twittername?
Again, somehow if I find people not following me back I will automatically fall into the space of making meaning out of it; I normally will get them know I want them to follow me back so we can have a 2 way conversation; I either announce in the public time line or unfollow them using Twitter Karma; Surprisingly they will follow me back.
So I think time is the factor; Not the people; People are People; Remember the cosmic flows through people through you back to the cosmic! How else can our Higher Self detect what we want if we don't communicate?
As always; we always want what others have; it's our natural sense of growth; so following more people to me will give me an idea of what I want the Cosmic to deliver me; The faster the better! Sometimes with twitter I get it right after I hit the send and next the home button.
thanks for your conscious reply. I agree that Twitter is the current "hot" manifestation of the quantum, non-local collective consciousness.
I totally agree that following more people broadens your digital horizons and gives you a better idea of what you want the cosmic to deliver you.
I enjoy your thinking - please connect on Twitter!
I follow people and I ditch them if they prove unsavory. Every has the right to make the decision on who to follow... and event limit lots of people... I just get really skeptical when someone's social media skills or philosophy when they don't appear to follow anyone new.
I will even follow back "those" marketers and get rich quick guru's, even the "how to get 10,000 followers in a week" dudes and filter them to the Sports section.
I follow a few celeb's but I'm not really interested. Ron Howard followed me back though. I'd love to talk his ears off but, I keep it light and occasional.
Tnx, Don
My friend @RobMcNealy says that MLM and "get rich quick" gurus are great people to follow. They're
gullible suckers, they'll check out your stuff... and they're easy to sell stuff to ;)
Thanks for joining the conversation!
i'll follow a web dev or kernel hacker, but not a spammer or a soccer dad i have nothing in common with, judging by the tweets/descriptions
and then i have another account, which is locked pricate, that i post things like "i'm at this bar, who's gonna join me for a drink".. that one has only ~40 following,people i actually know and care about.
9/10 tweets go to the public one.
but i can't follow all 2,000 people on the public one -- my actual friends whom i care about get losts - hence i need the smaller list.
If you want a tiny clique, then don't do it in public i say
Your reasoning sounds good but the methodology sounds complex - unintentionally schizophrenic! Why not just make a group called 'close friends'? And manage it from one account. Here's how:
http://socialmediarockstar.com/follow-more-people
Let me know if you need any help or have any questions.
Well I think being a celebrity is pointless anyway.
Totally. I'll go to the Cinemaplex or read People if I want to gaze at celebrities. The pleasure in social media is in CONNECTING with REAL PEOPLE.
For instance, if i want to use Twitter for personal interaction with known acquaintances, why should I bother following miscellaneous people who want to be my friends?
you should follow whomever you want... this blog post is only taking a dig at people who fancy themselves 'professional social media celebrities' yet never, ever want to follow anyone else unless they absolutely have to... lest the change in numbers make them look less influential and rockstar like.
This is not directed at normal people who use Twitter to keep in touch with friends or who don't want to follow people they aren't interested in... nor is it directed at actual celebrities.
Just Twitter people who crave followers yet have stingy 'policy' of never following anyone back unless they are inescapably obligated to.
@jasonmitchener
It must take a lot of time... I only have 2,000 friends and it can eat up quite a chunk of the day. Any tips for managing so many followers smoothly?
Great, great job!
@shellykramer
(yes, I follow back :)
Thanks for the compliments. I'm glad you liked.
I'm not trying to be some kind of dictator and tell people they must follow everyone... you should certainly reserve the right to follow or not follow people you deem appropriate...
I'm just questioning the type of big ego -- that can be found on Twitter -- who craves as many followers as possible while striving to follow as few people as they can humanly get away with.
Or worse, the people who abruptly ditch ALL their followers for image reasons. Not that cool or socially trustworthy in my book.
Also, millions of peeps who will retweet it so I'll see your posts anyway...
If there's something that's really WORTH seeing, it'll be seen one way or another.
Hopefully... maybe.. some "too cool for school" web celeb will read this... some how or another.
Nobody is a nobody in social media. I'd rather have 20 good friends with only 20 followers each than 200 celebrity friends with 200,000 followers each who never listen or respond.
Why? Because it's emerging. Norms may or may not get established, but who am I to dictate how somebody else uses a brand new thing? After all, in the early days of the telephone, some people thought the appropriate way to answer it was to say "Who is speaking?" as soon as you picked up. If I'd demanded that behaviour, I might look a little silly in retrospect.
I disagree with you on the topic of blind reciprocal following, but if you're right, then people who are using the tool "the wrong way" will suffer the consequences of that behaviour.
I agree that I have no right to tell people how to use Twitter.
But I do have the right to observe how a certain kind of person.. who wants as many followers as humanly possible while vigilantly niggling over how few people they humanly get away with follow.... seems vain and annoying and increasingly irrelevant to how *I* use social media.
It seems to have hit a nerve where a lot of other people feel the same way - for now.
http://tr.im/i1oQ
I guess I have a pretty high follower to followee ratio, but I also hope that I'm not desperate trying to gather followers. In fact, the above post links to a Greasemonkey script my friend made that hides the number of followers (et al), so that I don't obsess over them.
As others have mentioned in this thread, I think I'd find a Twitter stream of 1800 people pretty useless. I'm glad others feel differently, but that's not how I prefer to use the tool. If that makes me a snob in some users' eyes, so be it. I'd rather have a manageable amount of signal.
Yeahhhhhhhhh!!!! Glad you feel it. Thanks for stopping by.
Unfortunately, Twitter can be a hotbed of "absolute narcissism" people and consciousness...
3 cheers for keeping it real and remember that people can always teach you something.
Anyway, I still think @RyanSeacrest should've followed me back :) coz I'm a big fan of American Idol :p Thanks for the post , Brett. I totally agree with you!
Glad you agree!
That sounds like a healthy attitude.
I do agree with your points about being generally new to social media/the internet stand up, and my feeling is as celebrities continue to flock to Twitter, all but the desperate for attention ('re-fame') will likely continue to see a follow count of less than twenty - most of whom are fellow celebrities - more than acceptable.
You did an excellent post and I agree that most "real life" celebs use Twitter poorly. I can excuse them.. because they're not web geeks...
but I find it really questionable when "internet famous" bloggers and "social media stars" never want to follow or interact in the same way. It seems like they ESPECIALLY don't know what it's all about... from my own understanding of social media.
And I choose not to follow them, usually ;)
My point is, I think there is a lot of celebrities that take that same approach. They follow their friends and a few connections and that's what works for them. Some of those 'web celebrities' who follow everyone, really don't. They follow a few friends via text messages and the rest is a stream, just like the public timeline.
If you haven't read @wilw's explanation of how he uses twitter, I think you should. http://is.gd/ihF4
I'm not applying rules to anyone... nor criticizing you if you don't want to follow everyone back.... you have every right to not follow anyone for any reason or no reason at all.
I'm just saying that people like @WillW are irrelevant to me, personally, for how I use Twitter. I had no idea who WilW is before I went on Twitter... now he posts a policy saying how he can only interact with a very limited circle of people and he tweets about random stuff... and I'm like 'Cool, but it doesn't sound like a valuable connection for me to nurture. Better to focus on people who could POTENTIALLY be interested me if things go well."
I'd rather make a "friend" or a "connection" than become someone's anonymous fanboy.
And Twitter has infinite opportunities for me to do that.
As for the celebs that follow limited friends and have the rest as a stream.... well of course... lots of people with more than 1,000 folowers do that....but they're still coming across as 'approachable' and not distant. And I like that style better, personally.
then the damn spammers hit. polluting my stream with auto-DMs.
then the overly social and overly attention starved start @ing you and throwing twitter tantrums if you don't @ them back.
so i mass unfollowed everyone and started over. i dropped 1K+ in one day as a result...and you know what? i don't care. because i added back all the folks in the past year and a half that i've had real connections and convo with. that turned out to be 900. so now i've got 8K followers and 900 follow backs. and i'm happy.
take the opposite stance for a second. not all people join twitter to be web celebrities. and a lot of time i have good info to share b/c of the work i do that gives me access to information and people that folks don't usually have -- and no i'm not talking about some former star trek actor. i'm talking about news about international business, insights for entrepreneurs interested in thinking of expanding to foreign markets. if you were someone who wanted to do so, you'd probably follow me and not get so hung up on if i follow back or not because i'm feeding people good info that is helpful.
you should take another read at your posts. you yourself kind of come across as whiny about this whole thing. the fact is, people use twitter differently and for different reasons. so you may interpret someone as wanting to be a "web celebrity" if they don't adopt your follow back policy...while that person may simply be using twitter for themselves and not to do a song and dance for strangers in the hopes of making new fake friends who are just out to up their own follower numbers and feel relevant. get over yourself.
I found that this article sounded a bit arrogant. Brett, you're stating that you're not here to give lessons, but that's exactly what your post does. What's the use of saying “I’m not here to tell you how to use Twitter or other social media tools” if your post is just about that? You're not telling people what they should do, but you're telling them that they're doing it wrong, that you're not pleased with them, etc. Not sure if that's really different.
I'd like to challenge your (unworded) definition of social media. In my opinion, social media is what you do with it. Want to use Twitter as a RSS feed for a blog? Fine. Want to interact with only a few people whom you know already? Fine. Want to interact with thousands of people? Fine as well. I don't see any of these uses as superior. Twitter users will chose if they want to follow your Twitter-as-RSS or not, if they want to try to interact or not, etc. You seem to equate “the point of social media” with “using social media to the maximum of its marketing or networking capabilities”. But if people don't want to use Twitter for marketing or heavy networking, but just for discussing with friends, what's the big deal?
I personnaly use Twitter to chat with friends, and friends of friends I've met once or am likely to meet. Plus a few people I don't know physically but just happend to like their updates (well, actually I can mention only one), and a few Twitter-as-RSS accounts. That amounts to 65 accounts in all. I twice as much followers, and for each follower I've checked out their updates to see if I happen to know them, if they tweet interesting stuff, or if they're spam accounts (I block these). Right now I'm okay with that situation, but if I start getting many more followers I may consider switching to private updates.
Protecting your updates is a clear sign that you're using Twitter for personnal interactions rather than time-consuming networking. So maybe some celebrities you're aiming at should consider this? But at the same time, protecting your updates might block people you don't want to keep out, just because they won't take the time or will hesitate to send a request.
I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm just saying how people who make a big point out of NEVER following anyone back.... while craving as many followers as possible... seem distant and kind of lame to me.
I use Twitter for networking, but for making connections with people. Not connecting to people who never respond back.
jason calacanis
brian solis
michael arrington
loic lemuer
the self-titled and self aggrandizing......
Have to say, I think you're completely wrong on this. Following for the sake of politeness is pointless, but Dave Gorman puts it better than I can:
http://gormano.blogspot.com/2009/03/when-twitte...
This isn't about following people for politeness, or saying you must follow everyone who follows you.
As it clearly says in the post, this isn't even about real offline celebrities.
This is about a kind of small-time web geek narcissist who tries to LOOK like a real celebrity by clamoring for followers and being incredibly stingy about who they follow.... including NOT FOLLOWING people they find interesting - for the sake of appearing influential.
If you haven't run into these people yet, you will soon. And they're the most worthless people on Twitter.
@ replies and now even @ mentions DO come to their attention as they are naturally filtered. And I know from personal experience that most will reply even if they don't follow you back. The only exception that makes this annoying is when they decide to reply by DM which I then can't reply back to.
Like everyone else, if you want to have a meaningful stream you can keep up with they too have to be discriminate with who they follow.
If your input is valuable enough to THEM over time they'll subscribe to it.
It's really as simple as that. And that's how I see how Twitter SHOULD work.
Some people will NEVER subscribe to you, as a rule, no matter what, because they're too busy posing as an 'important celebrity who never follows anyone back'.
The think that following ANYONE new is a liability,
And, yes, I think these people don't yet "get" social media in the same way my friends and I do!
However if I followed everyone back that follows me It'd twitter completely useless to me except as a way to pass on a message. Any hope to follow people I'm actually interested in, or catch up on tech news or whatever would go out the window.
All because you have hurt feelings about not being followed back? Sorry ain't happening.
Yes it's personal, I don't find the tweets of that particular person to be interesting enough to follow, the SNR ratio is way too low, or whatever.
I don't have hurt feelings about people not following me back. I just find WEB GEEKS who try and pose as "big screen" celebrities by never following anyone back - pruning their numbers to look influential - to be lame and increasingly irrelevant to my world.
http://gormano.blogspot.com/2009/03/when-twitte...
I think you mis-interpreted my post to mean "celebrities should follow every one of their followers back or they're heartless and rude."
Dave Gorman is free to follow or not follow whomever he wants to.
I'm not suggesting that anyone is obliged to follow anyone back, ever.
I'm not even really talking about novelists... I'm talking about "Web celebrites" (which Dave clearly has a built in audience from his book publishing, and clearly isn't a web geek with his Blogger blog)
I'm saying that WEB GEEK 'celebrities' who never follow anyone back - not even other celebrities or interesting A-list people -- have a social media deficiency.
People who try and get lots of followers and who try just as hard to never follow anyone interesting (to make their numbers look 'influential') aren't on my list.
Nope.
.
I say follow who you feel to follow, thats the nice thing about twitter.
What if they auto follow back? Then they use search engines, and groups to only REALLY follow those they like, whats the difference? NONE!
Sincerely,
UncleJohn, Social Geek
If I were a celeb with 50K+ followers how much difference would following make to the folks who follow. I'd be just as likely to see their tweet using Tweetie, Twhirl, Tweetdeck regardless of following them or not.
You're right. I'm clueless. Busted!
*sniffles*
Another supporter of the Dave Gorman theory of Twitter here.
No one is obliged to follow anyone they find uninteresting. You and "web celebs" should only follow people they find interesting.
But if you're a BIG-TIME BLOGGER and 11,000 people follow you, but you only find 117 people interesting on the whole internet (not out of your followers, even - but anyone) - I'd say you are have too narrow of a scope / curiosity level to fit in with my kind of crowd.
And I'd assume you're probably either a closet social media newbie or a narcissist.
It gives me great pleasure you leave you and your crowd to get all hot under the collar about nothing at all.
I don't think anyone is wrong or stupid.
This is a blog,a place I write my opinions and perspectives - and people can have a conversation around it.
If someone wants to argue a point, I'll mull it and explain my own side. Never called anyone stupid.
I'd imagine that most of the users who expect you to follow them back have migrated over from Facebook after hearing the myriad of celebs throw the "Twitter" name around. Twitter isn't Facebook, that's why I like it. It's far more personal, can be a great source of information and affords it's users the option of not having to put up with a slew of Facebook-esque status updates every time somebody in their friends list decides to post what they had for breakfast.
Not following somebody back on Twitter is far more polite than clicking "Ignore" on a FB friend request, something I would imagine most people do if they don't know the person requesting friendship (I know I do). Besides, Brett, do you actually think that what you have to Tweet about is important enough for the likes of Gorman or Fry to take time out of their day to read? Or do you just want a group of people you've never met in your life to look at your Followers List and see that your opinions and updates are important to the Twitter Elite? I wonder who actually has the ego problem here...
I would say that the person who is obsessed with as collecting as many followers as possible, while striving to NEVER follow anyone back unless they are forced to by a real-life obligation.... has the ego problem.
This article is not a dig at people who don't follow everyone back - it's a dig against a kind of narcissistic "online celebrity" who fancys themself the social media guru but NEVER wants to follow anyone or interact
It's not about like me (who uses Twitter to two-way network with people) or you (who uses Twitter for entertainment).
I don't know how Gorman or Fry is (we've never been acquainted yet) so YES, for now, I think that what I have to say on my blog is just as important as what they say on their blogs.
Looking back at this blogs previous entries, it's pretty clear that you've stumbled on some serious linkbait with this post so kudos to you for that, you clearly know your stuff. I wonder if you're ready for the slew of followers you're no-doubt about to get? Will you be following them all back? And if so, how long do you think it'll take before you start preening people from your list because the last 20 tweets in your feed are Retweeting Bittbox's latest texture pack or Abduzeedo's most recent top 30 [insert colour here] websites?
Personally, I have added you. But that's because SEO and Social Media fall under my broad net of interests and I find the direction of your blog to be quite interesting, I want to see where it goes. I don't expect to be followed back, which wouldn't offend me in the least because after reading through your blog Graphic Design and Branding don't seem to get much coverage.
Pete
In real life social situations, we make all kinds of "gestures" to create a safe and beneficial relationship with people both personally and professionally.
What kind of social gesture is it when someone wants lots of followers but NEVER wants to follow anyone else (not even out of their followers... but out of ANYONE.. even other celebs) - they seem like a self-absorbed, narcissistic type that I avoid.
I think you absolutely should not follow boring, inane Twitterers. Just follow some people you find interesting.
I totally feel ya on this.. but celebrities who are famous offline have an entirely different set of standards and behavior for how they are perceived and what is interesting.
Sorry to use a potentially horrifying analogy... but if Paris Hilton sits on her bed in her underwear and gossips on her cellphone about nothing.... that's prime-time MTV "programming" - and if I were to do the same thing, the station would lose its license and get boycotted. ;)
Likewise, I am unimpressed at some web celebrities' blogging and Twittering. Just like a screen star should have looks and acting talent.. a web celebrity should be really lively and intelligent on the Web. Many are, but some are fairly unimpressive.
If everyone followed everyone it is highly likely you'll get more noise than signal through your twitter feed. And I don't buy into the 'follow everyone and just use filters on applications like tweetdeck to filter the noise from signal' - that's the exact same thing as not following someone except you're doing it out of the public eye.
I couldn't disagree more.
When I follow people in Tweetdeck... I look at EVERYONE's flow when I am on Twitter. Also people are able to DM me if they need something (and I leave that door open unless they abuse it, then I block).
I catch all kinds of COOL STUFF in my 'all friends' column than the little echo I'd catch in my 'best friends' column.
Also the public eye is important - at least busy celebs who follow SOME people back make them feel welcome and not distant.
I for one follow plenty of people that dont follow me back. Why should I assume that just because they find me interesting they will find 'me' interesting? Doesn't work that way, and to think otherwise shows a woeful undestandting of social intereaction both physically and virtually.
So i don't blow a strop when after 2 weeks they still havn't followed me, and in my strop I go and unfollow them. That's just utterely childish and frankly, immature.
Now, if you are saying all this because Twitter is your life it is what you do full-time then fair enough. You have time to spend chatting to 1000's of people. But a lot of us dont. I have a job to service and Im not on Twitter to appease anyone or provide a public service, although many people seem to think that I am. Don't make sweeping generalizations when there are plenty of other factors to take into account. Namely, are you on Twitter all day every day, or is Twitter a in between working action? This will affect how many people can be effectively followed
Also, if you are or a lame insincere nature then again, go ahead and follow all 30k people that are following you. Spammers and zombie internet marketers included.
If I follow 'you' back it is because I have seen your tweets via other means, you have taken time to converse with me, to hook me in, you have Retweeted some of my Tweets. This means that person knows Im not just following them out of some insincere naive Twitter ritual, they know its because I have taken a personal interest with them.
Enough of the fake sincerity already. If people don't or can't service an equal number of people that are following them then who are you to say they are being nooby or snooty? You are not. Its just part of the complexity of Twitter, you can generalise these things.
Never did I say "Celebrities MUST follow EVERYONE or ELSE they are clearly BAD people!"
I said "Social media (web) celebrities who make a game out of collecting AS MANY followers as POSSIBLE while striving to FOLLOW NOBODY back are kinda creepy."
To me that is the essential definition of a snob.
There are real life super heroes on Twitter that swoop down and rescue myriads of people on the daily. There is something about this arena where it invokes a need to give and help others. We'll that's something new?! ;)
It's like nothing I've seen before.
Those bougie snobs... let them be who they are. We'll make sure and represent and signify for the people that actually reflect back what you give.
There's something about Twitter that bigs up a spirit of global, interconnected kindness for sure.
I sometimes DO annoyed because some snobby and "unsocial" people seem to do very well in social media.... but I just need to focus on me and keep doing my thing and be nice to other people while I do it.. and it'll all be good in the long run.
That owuld be a nice gesture. Thanks for your comments.
I entered Tweetworld two months ago. I soon realized (after 2 stressful weeks!) that if I really wanted to read everything that comes on my Twitter feed... man, I'd soon be in trouble! Of course it's not possible to read everybody's tweets when you follow thousands of people (I already can't with just a few hundreds) but I don't think it's the point anyway. I see Twitter as some sort of a game, a super-efficient way to learn new things, discover new people. To surprise myself. When I follow someone because I think we're sharing some business or personal interests, I need this person to have the same kink of curiosity; I want her to be open-minded; I expect her to eventually find something interesting in what I say. Their "not-following" sounds to me like a decision they already made to never find any interest in me. But so many people are ready to have a sincere sharing experience... why should I bother with someone who doesn't?
No need to read everything... just read what you see when you're on it.
It it ain't two-way, I'm not gonna stay.
If you follow me, I a)check your tweets, are they in English (sorry, solo-linguistic), b)check to see that not all your tweets are links to your blog, c)not trying to sell me something in EVERY tweet.
If those check out I follow you back.
-Jim
@SEO_Web_Design
I checked out Twitterfall once, briefly, and it looked pretty cool.
I think I'll have to dive back in.
I feel your frustration.. there's a lot of marketers (like me) and a lot of them are perhaps more direct and aggressive about what they're promoting. Some people are outright spammers.
Unfortunately some people exploit new communication tools and over-exert themselves... whether it be e-mail, phone, telephone...
Glad you liked!
Yeah,.. some people never visit the blogs of other or leave comments.
There's no rules, but I find social media works really well if you make two-way gestures at least.
But that said, I also agree with others here that following everyone who follows you can be a little overkill. Sure, I can follow them and filter them out with TweetDeck, but what's the point of that? Why not follow only the people who I think are genuinely interesting?
I had to make this decision when, after starting to follow @guykawasaki, I had over 30 people follow me in one day (I don't think that's coincidence). For a noob, that doubled my following. At first I was flattered; then I realized that the majority of those people had absolutely nothing in common with me and were just following me with the hope I'd follow them in return and make their numbers higher. In fact, a few of them who I chose not to follow have unfollowed and refollowed me repeatedly so I get multiple notifications, thinking maybe I didn't see them or something.
When someone follows me, I make it a point to take a look at their feed and see the types of things they post about and if I'm interested, I follow back. I probably won't ever have tens of thousands of followers, but that's OK with me. I'd rather be more personal with my Twitter and connect than play a game to get the highest number of followers I possibly can.
your strategy sounds really sensible.
you look at people's profile and feeds and follow people who look interesting.
That sounds like a winning recipe to me.
But those who have gained their 'celebrity' through the internet should be more open to making more friends -- accept every request on Facebook and MySpace and Flickr, etc. If the tens of thousands of people who read your blog are good enough to pay your bills (via ad revenue, buying your books, etc.) then they should be good enough to be your 'friend' on Twitter -- even if you're secretly filtering them using tools like TweetDeck. When it is that obvious that you don't care about your fans - or anyone else - what is the motivation to continue following you? If you want something 'private' for your real-life friends, then create a separate account. There are some well-known bloggers that I can think of who have 200k+ followers and they follow fewer than 100 people, which can feel like a snub to hundreds of thousands of people who are reading those tweets, buying the books, etc.
I think that normal people and real-life clebs should be free to use Twitter how every they want to.., but like you, I would expect more out of professional bloggers and "social media pros".....
Sounds like we have similar mindset. Thanks for stopping by, hope to see ya back!
I do have an issue with not being replied to. If you 6,500 followers and I'm trying sincerely to participate in your conversation and you just ignore me repeatedly? Well that's just plain rude. I'll give someone 3 opportunities to reply and then sayonara. Strangely it's many of the people who have thrived on building community that are guilty of this practice and seem to think their Twitter don't stink.
I give big kudos to Andy @Ihnatko, @ambermacarthur, @pistachio who although quite popular, consistently and sincerely honor their following by engaging when they can.
But Twitter snobs like @THErealDVORAK, @hotdogsladies, @MissRogue and @ChrisBrogan? I know you're so very clever and so very important but when you get 140 characters will you all go @fuck @yourselves in the DM.
Again, somehow if I find people not following me back I will automatically fall into the space of making meaning out of it; I normally will get them know I want them to follow me back so we can have a 2 way conversation; I either announce in the public time line or unfollow them using Twitter Karma; Surprisingly they will follow me back.
So I think time is the factor; Not the people; People are People; Remember the cosmic flows through people through you back to the cosmic! How else can our Higher Self detect what we want if we don't communicate?
As always; we always want what others have; it's our natural sense of growth; so following more people to me will give me an idea of what I want the Cosmic to deliver me; The faster the better! Sometimes with twitter I get it right after I hit the send and next the home button.
sorry.....
i don't do twitter... it confuses me, i don't see the point.. isn't facebook ENOUGH?!?! what more do you need.... i don't know.
Twitter is real time, global social intelligence. A bit-by-bit, up to the minute account of what the collective unconscious is doing or thinking. It's more brief and to-to-the-point than Facebook.
It's THE hot social network at the moment.. and it's fun!
Sign up for Twitter, download Tweetdeck.. and send me a message! I've love to stay in touch.
Still trying to learn how this works so I really like this page and article, thanks.
A universal drive of human beings (indeed, some have said this is what it means to BE human) is a desire to be heard, understand, and be significant. Those who do not follow back seem to communicate "I don't want to hear, there's no need for me to understand, and the only one who deserves significant is me."
Unfortunately, the established political covey tend to see themselves as "celebrities." Hmmm…maybe I should refer to Wikipedia to see what a Republic is or why early Americans were so incensed about "taxation without representation." From what I recall of 8th grade civics, the colonists were ticked that their leaders weren't listening.
Now is a good time to reconnect with who we say we are as humans and renew a commitment to honoring our neighbor by paying attention, listening, seeking to understand, and by contributing to our neighbors' quest for significance.
Imagine the world we'd create if we did.
http://twitter.com/treypennington
Does it really take any more time to follow more people? Once you click follow, you're done. Obviously you will not respond to everything, but you will still build relationships with the most unlikely of people. It doesn't take long to figure out who you might build a relationship with. I follow most with the exception of spam and something with a very tight niche that I don't even understand! :)
Besides, how busy are these celebrities really? With nannies, chefs, trainers, drivers, ghost writers, publicists, producers, personal shoppers, hairdressers, gardeners, etc, what are they so busy doing?? Running errands at Walmart?? I know people with much busier lives. Taking the time to know your fans is important, even just a few. There a few that do, some of the music groups. I think most fans don't even expect a Tweet back, but it is nice to know these celebrities at least have one eye open to "listen"
Not to put a shameless link to my blog here, but here.... on a similar note about celebrities and Twitter... http://www.inspiredtowrite.com/2009/04/is-twitt...
I think that the more "important" and visible you get, the more busy you get. Web celebrties and real life celebrities get a lot of fan mail. you or I might only get a one-to-a-few @ replies to a Twitter question, but more busy people get hundreds.
I would forgive people like Britney Spears or Oprah for not Twitteting perfectly, but I find it off putting when "Web Gurus" don't follow anyone at all.
Awesome! Way to stick it to the "man"!
I am scrubbing my accounts of people who don't follow back and people
who I have never, ever interacted with, head from or know who they are.
However, I don't agree with you. I don't think I or anyone should feel obliged to follow every get rich quick scammer, self proclaimed social media guru or the 20 millonth SEO expert that has followed me. I don't want to hear what they all have to say and I'm sure celebs don't want to hear what every sick stalker has to say either.
Try and reach out to people you're interested in... famous or not. If
you make a connection, great. If you can't get in touch with them...
and their content isn't that great... forget them.
I wouldn't personally ditch anyone I was truly interested in, though,
just because they didn't follow me back.
-Brett
Thanks for your comments, I'm glad it helped you. Please check out
some older articles or subscribe via RSs for more!
-Brett
There are far too many missing people in the USA (and abroad) and I believe the more followers that I can obtain, the more likely they may pick up on my missing people and RT. I have interacted with many family members who spend their days living on the web hoping to reach out to anyone that may happen upon their tragedy and help. This is the least I can do.
Unfortunately, only a handful of the followers that I have repost the banners:( Sad. A lot are missing children, missing young men and women, and ederly alike. If you want to follow me and take my banners and RT, I would be most appreciative. I do not copyright my work and I do update when a loved one is found. I am @LostNMissing and it would be awesome if celebrities helped to pick up and distribute a banner here and there...one just never knows when and if it could fall into the right hands.
It's incredibly considerate of you to care for those people with lost
or missing loved ones! Some people might not want to follow because it
your account has a (charitable) 'agenda':
http://socialmediarockstar.com/11-ways-to-lose-...
Good luck with getting as many followers as possible... and I hope you
are able to bring someone home
-Brett
Sorta like the parents that don't simply neglect the kid all day, they carefully prop him in front of the tv and neglect him all day.
-->Are you lusting after a few (or even more) Uggs (UGG Australia) boots and if so, you're in good company, as girls and women of all ages, especially with the simple, slipper-like design of these sheepskin ugg boots, which are relatively easy and very comfortable to wear. And they appear to be affected. Some men are also jumping on the trend and luxury UGGs? Australia, the brand also offers a range of contemporary styles for them.
-->Could you mind giving everyone loves from ugg-boots? There are so many types of uggs, ugg bailey button,ugg classic tall, ugg classic short, ugg classic cardy. How to choose your favorite? Or do you really want to one uggs regardless its style? Despite their design is awkward and slipper-lile, Uggs is one of the few stations that are of general interest, have argued that cross generational lines.
-->Young people, students and young mothers and the Middle Ages, the original Black Ultra Tall UGG Boots, seem pulled the fleecy-lined boots that are manufactured in Australia, with the best materials. Are you sure that your feet warm in winter without socks, and cool in summer so that is more versatile too? If no, hurry up to take one ugg boots on goodugg uk sale ! That's why we see people wear them in schools, supermarkets, on the slopes and even in the most popular beaches in the United States and abroad. Many surfers also use uggs to keep their feet warm.
-->What do you really care about? Is its price or quality, or you just following the general trend? You know what are you thinking in your heart!
-->Are you lusting after a few (or even more) Uggs (UGG Australia) boots and if so, you're in good company, as girls and women of all ages, especially with the simple, slipper-like design of these sheepskin ugg boots, which are relatively easy and very comfortable to wear. And they appear to be affected. Some men are also jumping on the trend and luxury UGGs? Australia, the brand also offers a range of contemporary styles for them.
-->Could you mind giving everyone loves from ugg-boots? There are so many types of uggs, ugg bailey button,ugg classic tall, ugg classic short, ugg classic cardy. How to choose your favorite? Or do you really want to one uggs regardless its style? Despite their design is awkward and slipper-lile, Uggs is one of the few stations that are of general interest, have argued that cross generational lines.
-->Young people, students and young mothers and the Middle Ages, the original Black Ultra Tall UGG Boots, seem pulled the fleecy-lined boots that are manufactured in Australia, with the best materials. Are you sure that your feet warm in winter without socks, and cool in summer so that is more versatile too? If no, hurry up to take one ugg boots on goodugg uk sale ! That's why we see people wear them in schools, supermarkets, on the slopes and even in the most popular beaches in the United States and abroad. Many surfers also use uggs to keep their feet warm.
-->What do you really care about? Is its price or quality, or you just following the general trend? You know what are you thinking in your heart!