Comments on: The twitter follower fallacy

By: Metablogging.gr » Blog Archive » Θεωρία twitter

Metablogging.gr » Blog Archive » Θεωρία twitter — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:30:08 +0000

[...] το ποστ ήρθε σαν απόρεια του The twitter follower fallacy όπου κάποιοι μου έλεγαν ότι ναι, δεν έχει σημασία [...]

By: faisal majeed

faisal majeed — Sat, 02 May 2009 17:41:32 +0000

So Twitter is awesome for Taking traffic to you website . It is very
simple to setup and its a fun positive way to keep in contact with
people. To get more followers on twitter check out this amazing
tool.

By: Metablogging.gr » Blog Archive » Ο αριθμός Ντάνμπαρ κι η διαδικτυακή μας συμπεριφορά

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:49:18 +0000

[...] Δυστυχώς οι άνθρωποι του marketing που θέλουν να παρουσιάζονται και ειδικοί στα social media, οδηγούν τα νέα μέσα (και τους πελάτες τους) σ’ αυτή την γραμμή του παραλογισμού: τη συλλογή διαδικτυακών σχέσεων, σαν να πρόκειται για συλλογή από πεταλούδες. (Κάτι το ανάλογο έγραφα πρόσφατα και στο αγγλικό μου μπλογκ: The twitter follower fallacy). [...]

By: » The weird and wonderful world of Twitter » Tom Doyle :: TALK

» The weird and wonderful world of Twitter » Tom Doyle :: TALK — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:50:08 +0000

[...] The twitter follower fallacy (webtropic.cc) [...]

By: Nikos Anagnostou

Nikos Anagnostou — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:47:09 +0000

@lapworth Yes, I can agree to ‘engagement’. My objection was to the use of the term ‘conversation’. Not because this is something by definition excluded from twitter, but because twitter is totally unsuitable for a threaded conversation. It is not designed for it. And, of course, I did not mean that conversation equals a sales pitch. Far from it. Now, If you have managed to turn the triviality of the twitter engagement to your profit, this is great. But is it a rule everyone can follow?

By: lpapworth

lpapworth — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:20:58 +0000

@Nikos I’m surprised by your comment. Perhaps don’t think in terms of “chatting”, think in terms of “engagement”? After all, a company that only discusses online when it will lead to a sale, isn’t really engaging. I get most of my work from Twitter, including workshops in Asia and the Middle East. Word of mouth – some tweets are retweeted 50 or 80 times – showed me that revealing a sense of humour, willingness to “chat” and ability to quickly switch into helpful, giving expertise mode are just good business practices.
If that’s too hard, think of the corner shop guy who chats to his clientele. He may not beat the supermarket for convenience and speed, but hey, perhaps not everyone is looking for supermarket-quick, dis-engaged discussion online?

By: Nikos Anagnostou

Nikos Anagnostou — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:17:06 +0000

@f055 Retweets count and followers count, provided they get attention. Because both premises (:retweets & followers) are about how much and in which way the message broadcasted. But the equally important and mostly neglected premise is the limitation of attention, especially when the message is only 140 chars long. This is what i was trying to say…

@mgpolitis You are right in pinpointing that the statistic is dynamic: as long as twitter growth is exponential, the % of users that will follow apporx. 10 others will be high. When the growth declines then the average user will more likely follow more than ten. In short, user attention is inversely proportional to time, which is a grim perspective for twitter.

@alex Thank you. I read your piece. Completely in the same line. On a side note, I was looking for you in Plugg. I saw you were registered but did not find you. Were you actually there?

@Laurel Papworth Ahhh! Twitter is NOT a medium of conversations. I have been in this fallacy for a year or so, only to discover that what I thought was a discussion, was, in fact, most of the time, chatting. And, yes, chatting may be fun, but it is an expensive fun, since it is paid with currency of the highest denomination: time.

By: Tweets In The Rear View Mirror May Appear More Numerous Than They Are | FreakyTrigger

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:40:36 +0000

[...] that – together with this blog post on the fallacy that number of followers is a measurement of ‘influence’ – got me [...]

By: Laurel Papworth

Laurel Papworth — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:19:58 +0000

For me, personally, Twitter is party, and I move from swarm to swarm – I wouldn’t give up the stream of discussions (nothing like quantity of tweets to tell you there’s been a bushfire or earthquake) but I can settle into a discussion with a subgroup quite happily.

Try letting go of control, let the conversation wash over you, and then large numbers make sense. Cheers @SilkCharm

By: alex

alex — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:12:56 +0000

Excellent piece. I completely agree with your take on the scalability of social experience and recently wrote a post about fallacies that drive me nuts and there was one I called the “500+ fallacy” referring to the idea that having 500+ friends, contacts or anything of the like strikes me as completely crazy: http://bit.ly/JGMkm