I recently twitted this:
"If everyone follows 2000 people and everyone has 2000 followers no one can follow anyone."
This observation came from speaking with Pat Kitano who has almost 9500 followers and is "following" nearly the same number.
If you have 9500 followers, like Mr. Kitano, or even 2000 followers and you make it a practice as Pat does to follow everyone who follows you, you can't keep up.
Well, if you can't keep up, it follows (no pun intended), your followers can't either.
So, you may have thousands of people tweeting at cross purpose.
If everyone is similarly situated with large numbers of followers and everyone follows a number equal to their followers, then twitterites will all be broadcasting into a void of noise where despite your number of followers, you won't be heard!
Indeed, and ironically, its possible that you will be heard by far few people if you have large numbers of followers who also follow large numbers of people.
If everyone is important then no one is.
Pat also argues that its bad form not to follow those that elect to follow you. But perhaps its bad form to follow people whom you never really follow at all because you just don't have the time to sift through thousands of tweets a day? Its like saying "let's have lunch" and not meaning it.
I would think that there are certain people on twitter who due to their popularity become broadcasters and deserve plenty of followers. These people, however, may need two accounts. One to broadcast (news out) and another to listen (news in)
Mary McKnight takes an opposite tact with her follwers-she flatly refuses to follow them all. Her stated reason is not that she doesn't have time, but rather admits, when asked why she does not follow many of her over 1000 followers- "I don't find you interesting!"
@lcammarosa
@homegain
Comments (14)Subscribe to CommentsComment