Why I Follow You on Twitter (or Not)

Twitter, for the uninitiated, is a “microblogging” service that limits your posts to 140 characters. It differs from conventional blogging in that it all happens within twitter.com (although there are inputs and outputs for mobile devices and other feed mechanisms). You read people’s “tweets” by “following” them. Whereas regular blogging is more like broadcasting, Twitter is more focused on the idea of social networking.

Twitter seems to be hitting a critical mass lately, with loads of celebrities and big-namers jumping on board. As a result, loads more plebeians are jumping on too. You hear Twitter mentioned on TV, in newspapers, and in daily conversation. Will this ruin the “Twitter experience” or will it make it better?

It’s impossible to say, because the Twitter experience is different for each user. I wrote about this a while back, when I became annoyed at the growing phenomenon of the Twitter numbers game; people following everyone they could, primarily in the hope that they’d be followed back in order to pad their Twitter numbers (Following/Followed By). It’s an absurd quest.

It was annoying then, and it’s annoying now.

However, as Twitter grows, and as more people sign on, the experience changes. A few months ago, I used Twitter for only one thing; to follow (and be followed by) people I actually knew. It was like an open SMS party. Me and a bunch of friends simply texting short messages to each other — but “in the clear” where everyone following us could read them too.

At the time, I had no desire to follow anyone on the goddamn “A-list.” I’m sure Jason Kottke and Dave Winer et.al. are nice folks, but I don’t know them, so I saw no point in following them. Do I care what somebody I don’t know is having for lunch, or if they’re stuck at an airport? No!

But then a few things happened. First it was the New York Times, which created Twitter feeds for its various editorial departments. Every day, they send out tweets with links back to some of the articles published that day. So I started following its food, travel, and books feeds. Then FoodTV.ca went on Twitter and I started following them. On it went, and suddenly I had a different relationship with Twitter.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m not complaining. It’s a natural progression for that kind of technology, which is basically replaying the blog movement of 2000-2003. However, I still see evidence of the phenomenon of people following people like crazy — people they barely know — for the sake of cranking up their Twitter numbers. It boggles my mind, because who gives a flying f*ck how many people are following you?

That said, let me hereby declare why I will follow someone on Twitter:

  • It’s someone I actually know (either personally or because I’ve been following their blog for a long time)
  • Their Tweets are mostly about providing interesting and delicious links on topics of interest to me (e.g., FoodTV, Ruhlman, Bookoven)
  • Because they provide newsy links (e.g., cbcmontreal, CityHallReport)
  • In a few rare cases, it’s because it’s a “celebrity” who I find interesting (e.g., Bittman, JohnCleese)

That’s it. That’s why I follow people on Twitter. You will notice a glaring absence: because you follow me on Twitter. Rephrased: I will not follow you on Twitter simply because you follow me on Twitter.

If you’re one of those people who follow me and I don’t follow you back; please take no offense. I’m not complaining about the fact that you follow me. I’m not saying you shouldn’t follow me. I’m just saying that if you follow me and you don’t actually know me, then I don’t know why you’re following me!

This blog? Different thing. I want people to read this blog, whether they know me or not. I write about many different things in a way that I hope people — even strangers — find interesting. But Twitter only gives me 140 characters, and the vast majority of my Tweets are directed specifically at the handful of my followers who I actually know. It would be different if I were using Twitter as some kind of linkcasting service to my loyal customers, or as a way of disseminating important information about my highly specialized field of interest. But I’m not and I don’t. I Tweet about what’s for dinner or what silly thing I saw on BSG last night. It’s just an extension of bar talk with my buddies.

Why would anyone I don’t know want to read that?

So go ahead and follow me if you like. But please don’t get pissed or be judgmental if I don’t follow you back. As we speak I’m following 64 people/institutions, and that’s pretty much the limit of what I can handle. If I follow any more it’s because of one of the reasons listed above.

I don’t give a damn about reciprocating; follow me if you think you’ll enjoy it, and I’ll follow you if I think I’ll enjoy it. But don’t follow me if you’re just trying to crank up your numbers.

16 thoughts on “Why I Follow You on Twitter (or Not)

  1. When someone follows me, I check if they are spammers. If not immediately apparent, I follow them. If they really don’t ever say anything interesting or or relevance (i.e. they are following for numbers not actual participation) then i unfollow them.

    That reminds me, I have to go through my list and clear out the people who haven’t updated in ages.

  2. HermitDave, I skip that step. I take a look at their tweets, and if it’s someone I don’t know (or barely know) just talking about their daily lives, I don’t follow. No point in it. That would be noise blocking the signal. I don’t WANT to have 200 new tweets to read every hour!

    Zeke, thanks for the tip.

  3. Get ye arse into TweetDeck! It’s impossible to truly experience what Twitter has to offer without it. That’s how people are able to calmly follow thousands and still have it be a pleasant and intellectually enriching experience. At the moment, few Twitter aggregators can equal the simplicity and elegance of TweetDeck.

    To quote Jesse Hirsh:

    “The worst thing you can do on Twitter is follow no one. This to me is like wearing a sign on your head that either says you’re super arrogant, or super ignorant. There’s really no excuse to not reciprocate on Twitter. The tools exist to allow you to follow as many as you like and still adjust the signal to your liking.”

    Twitter Is An OpenSource Search Engine
    http://jessehirsh.com/twitter-is-an-open-source-search-engine

    There’s absolutely nothing wrong with people following someone else out of a desire to have them follow in reciprocation. That is, unless we’re talking about marketing bots and everyone still agrees it’s perfectly acceptable to ignore advertising when it’s rammed down your throat.

    Otherwise, Twitter is *supposed* to be a massive experiment in reciprocative communication. It’s like saying it’s wrong to expect someone to politely converse with you, if you approach them with a glass of wine in hand during an art opening and ask if they like what they see. Only the rude, snobbish (or deeply afflicted with Aspberger’s) would refuse to reciprocate on even the most basic level and walk away, then plug their ears to keep any other “unwanted” conversations from opening up unexpectedly around them.

    Those looking to protect an elitist ivory tower presence online may feel more comfortable segregating themselves from the public on Twitter, but they’re completely missing the point. This thing is evolving quickly. Those who close up their Twitter streams will be left in the dark, while the rest of the ecosystem keeps developing. Ten years from now, do you really want to be one of those people who sheepishly admits that he closed up his Twitter stream early on? It’ll likely be ridiculed like people who voted for John McCain, or anyone who felt the notion of “personal” computers would just never “catch on”.

    In any case, I have a feeling that those who close up their Twitter streams early (or fail to follow reciprocate) will themselves be locked out when new forms of tribalism emerge along the Twitter landscape. So used to ignoring the masses from high above, many will soon find the masses completely ignoring them from even farther up above “en masse”. The “rock star” era is ending.

    PS: Was there really a fashionable era for “n00b”? In the worlds from which it spawned it’s a rather classic term. It only had a fashion shelf life on the outside, kind of like “epic fail” did last year when it made its rounds amongst people (mostly poseurs) who otherwise wouldn’t deem to touch gaming with a ten foot pole.

  4. I think in my case there has to be exclusion criteria as well as your inclusion ones. Ie, I will follow you if you meet Blork’s criteria, unless you :

    – Overtwit
    – Mindlessly re-twit everything you blog, facebook-status-line, or identi.cate.

    (I know, the verb is to tweet, not twit, but the app is called twitter, and they should just deal)

  5. The whole point (and beauty) about Twitter is the simplicity that there are no rules, so if you want to follow back, go ahead. And if you want to top following someone, it’s very easy to do. No hard feelings either way.

    So although I’ve been reading your blog for several years as a way of enjoying the food and photos of my old college town and I even write a blog focused on Twitter, I don’t follow you there for many of the reasons you state.

    @warrenss

  6. Hmm, I was not sure there were politics involved with the twitter experience.
    Like you, I follow the subject matters that interests me and the people (whether I know them or not) that have something interesting to say. Do not feel obliged to follow someone just because they follow me.
    Perhaps we should open a “complaints” department for those who feel offended. The can leave their suggestions at the box :)

  7. LSC, I prefer “twit” over “tweet” too, primarily because it has one fewer character!

    Warren, as you (and others) say, “there are no rules” which means I can, if I wish, ignore the (unwritten) rule that you’re supposed to reciprocate.

    Venison: “elitist ivory tower?” WTF are you talking about? I just don’t want to have to bog through hundreds of tweets every couple of hours! Your analogies don’t work for me, largely because what happens on Twitter are not conversations. 90% of it is monologue:

    “Had pizza for dinner.” “OMG, BSG rocks!” “Great story about search engine optimization: [tinyurl]”

    Those aren’t conversations. If someone I know says “OMG, BSG rocks!” then I can put a face and a voice to it, and it might spark a conversation next time we meet F2F. But if five strangers say it, it means nothing to me.

    “Ten years from now, do you really want to be one of those people who sheepishly admits that he closed up his Twitter stream early on?” Jesus, would you like to put some more words in my mouth? I never said anything about closing it up. If anything, I said my Twitter usage was growing and evolving.

    What I resist is jumping on the bandwagon. Twittering for the sake of Twittering. Following people I don’t know and have no interest in just so I can have big Twitter numbers that don’t mean anything.

    Ten years from now? Ten years from now we’ll be talking about Twitter the way we now talk about the bulletin boards of the 1990s. As in, we won’t be talking about it. Am I less well off now because back in the 90s I only signed up for the BBs that I was interested in? All those people I know who spent 5 hours a day on hundreds of BBs — just because they could — are they better off than me now?

    BTW, I’m not really interested in Tweetdeck, at least not yet. I don’t want to have to run it through a separate app. Browser is fine, thanks. Particularly since on any given day I use at least three different computers to look at Twitter; I don’t know how well Tweetdeck synchronizes that. Besides, what’s the point of following someone if you just filter them out in Tweetdesk?

    And besides, Twitter is a fun little thing. An amusing diversion. It’s not the central focus of my day. Far from it! I’m not going to invest a tremendous amount of time in managing hundreds of feeds on the premise that every now and then something slightly interesting might pop up.

    All that to say, everyone goes on about how Twitter is so open and undefined, and has no rules, yet all these people lose their minds when someone like me comes along and says I’m not going to play the game (which like it or not is full of rules) and I’m going to use Twitter the way *I* want to.

  8. when the original twitter hype came out i derisively called the people in love with the app Twits. It still probably applies though I might be one right now :)

    Luckily, I am barely followed so there is not much noise, maybe one or two every three weeks.

  9. Incidentally (and this is an expansion on my blog posts, not the comments in particular) the more I read about Twitter, the more I realize that the vast majority of Twitter users fall into one of two camps:

    – People who use Twitter because they want to socialize with people and have fun following interesting links.

    – People who use Twitter because they’re enamored with the technology and its cultural/social/business implications.

    (Yes, there’s a lot of overlap.)

    I make no value judgments about one or the other. However, I am very much in the first camp. This very much informs my opinions about Twitter.

    I will also say that I have zero interest (less than zero actually, if that’s possible) in any conversations about Twitter as a way of boosting web site traffic, goddamn SEO, and endless ruminations on the necessity of expanding your social network (Facebook be damned!). I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m just saying I have no interest in it. At all. None. I will walk to the other side of the room if I hear people talking about it.

    No, I’m old fashioned. I like to talk with people about books and movies. Food and cooking. Cultural stuff (yes, including cultural implications and applications of technology). I like to know how their kids are doing and how things are going at work. I like to know if they had fun on their vacation, and to hear their stories. I like to look at people’s travel pictures (particularly if they’re wise enough to edit out the bad and redundant ones).

    Tools like blogs, Twitter, and even Facebook help us do all that. It helps us do more of it, in some cases better but in other cases not so well.

    But I’m not going to just run to where the herd is, and when I get there talk about nothing but the herd itself. No, I’d rather set up a few outposts in and around the herd, and to use them to help me do what I like to do.

    Does that make me a luddite? Does it make me a Philistine? Does it make me boring?

  10. one of the most intelligent comments on twitter. i’m still trying to figure it out. this helps. thanks.

  11. Forget about being “luddite”. I think there’s a whole
    generation gap now, and it has nothing to do with the
    age of people, but when they got online.

    Come early, and you represent the old, a place of
    ideas, and usually where you exchanged them with
    people you didn’t know. Density was
    so small that except in certain locations you
    wouldn’t bump into people you know. You defined
    things because the space was there, but the
    space wasn’t rigid.

    Come later, and it’s a very branded space, where
    commerce has defined things for you, and they
    are all competing to draw you to them. You get internet
    access for the utility, to keep in touch with those you
    know, and I assume much of the initial growth of “facebook”
    and “mypage” was because they were passed about in real life
    rather than via the internet.

    Even when you aren’t talking to people you know, it’s now
    mostly a form that is arranged on that basis, the whole
    concept of “friends” being watered down to nothing. So much
    of what goes on is nothing, because that’s really what people
    do, they want to be connected rather than connected for what they say.

    It’s become such a mass that pretty much everyone
    is following the herd, because that’s what a mass
    does. (That doesn’t mean everyone follows, it
    means that those who don’t are dwarfed by the
    mass.)

    The “luddites” are actually a part of it, since
    they came late, fearful of what they perceived
    as technological. I can remember the first time
    I read about the internet in mainstream press,
    it was 1993 and it was about “all that porn
    on the internet” and how something should be
    done. Wham, people hear about the internet, and
    it’s a negative thing. Those groups that were
    so vocal back then couldn’t imagine the potential
    of the new space, they wanted to limit it. So
    they came later, along with other people fearful
    of “technology” that they stayed away. Not only
    were such people not in early to define the internet,
    but they came so late that they just followed the
    mass. Even groups that yell about advertising trucks
    give no thought to rushing to branded spaces like
    “facebook”; they don’t really know of an internet
    different from that, so they just blindly accept it.
    They reinforce the worst.

    It isn’t age related, since it’s about when someone
    arrived. But it is skewed towards the young, since
    the young so badly need to fit in that they do
    go for the mass, which then sets the tone for
    the rest to follow.

    In 1996, when I got full internet access (and which
    was 18 years after I first heard of Arpanet), I took
    the Montreal Freenet to task for running ads in the
    business section of the paper, when the internet
    wasn’t about business or technology, but “something
    else”. No wonder I don’t think much of people spewing
    nowadays about “social networking”, I’d already seen
    the whole space as social. But someone who was ten
    in 1996 is now 23 now, much of the hype is now
    coming from people barely born in 1996, orgasmically
    embracing whatever new thing comes along for the
    sake of that new thing and for the sake of being
    like everyone else.

    They aren’t choosing anything, they aren’t defining
    anything, they just know they can’t be wrong if they
    follow the mass. Old media follows along, telling us about
    how that guy who wants to rename a Metro station has
    a facebook page (but not grasping that they were
    a bigger vector for the issue than the facebook page)
    or babbling on about “web 2.0” without ever knowing
    what the internet was like before commerce arrived,
    reinforcing the self-image of the mass.

    The internet has become like high school.

    Michael

  12. I basically follow the ‘rules’ you state in Twitter use, added with LSC’s additional ones. I also added some additional parameters for my usage including not allowing commercial/marketing twitterers (ha..I’m sure there’s a more common name for twitter users, but I’m sticking to it) to follow me.

    For me, Twitter is personal. Not business. And just because I mention your company or your product, doesn’t mean I want you following me for marketing purposes. It’s like a wide open constant survey. Sorry…you’ll have to get your info from someone else. Likewise, I tend not to follow businesses for the most part.

    And speaking of the changing useage of Twitter…In poking around on the net, I’ve come to find out that one of the twitter apps – ack, can’t remember the name & can’t find it now – that basically allows you to download your twits/tweets into your calendar, so you can keep track of what you said on certain days. This is of particular interest to parents (esp. parents of newborns) who want to record all the things that are happening with their kid. First tooth! Just took a step! Smiled for the first time!

    As someone in that particular situation, I find this useage of Twitter very intriguing. Things change SO quickly with your kid, you do want to have a memory of all these milestones, reflections and notes. Some people are good at writing this down in a journal. I am not. And also, taking care of a kid (esp. a young kid) doesn’t leave a lot of free time. Twitter is fast & easy. This feature alone makes me want to set up an account to twit/tweet exclusively about my kid. And in that case, I really would only want people I know (IRL or on-line) to follow (and we’d reciprocate). While I don’t mind if a stranger reads what I eat for lunch, I don’t think they need to know anything about my kid. Sadly, I think the app only works if your follow feed is unlocked (which wouldn’t work with my parameters above).

  13. I found this post the long way around by finding CBC Daybreak’s Twitter page. Saw they were following you and thought I’d check out what sort of things you Twittered about. Found the link that lead back here and was very disappointed at what I read. I think this is a very negative attitude to have, Ed and it unfortunately has ensured that I won’t be following you on Twitter or here. Certainly not as an act of protest but for two simple reasons:

    1. I’d prefer to avoid this kind of negativity in my daily reading
    2. You denounce the very process that lead me to your twitter page and blog

    I just thought you might like to know. Good luck fellow twit!

  14. Paolo, it boggles my mind that you find this attitude “negative.” The attitude is simply “I will use the tool in a way that feels right for me.”

    It’s the way I am. I’d rather have ten intimate friends than 100 superficial ones. As Michael Black implies (above), it’s probably a generational thing (in terms of when we came to the net/web). Not only do I not have the mental bandwidth to follow 200 or 300 people on Twitter, I simply don’t want to. Why do you think that’s negative?

    It’s just a different way of using the tool.

    There are parallels in so-called “real life.” I’d rather have a dinner party with six or eight friends than spend a night in a noisy bar with 200 people I barely know and can’t even hear.
    That’s not to say it’s *wrong* to go to that noisy bar, or that there’s anything wrong with the people who prefer that. It’s just not where my interest lies, and I’m not going to be untrue to myself for the sake of jumping on a bandwagon.

    How is that negative?

  15. Stephen Fry is a fabulous celebrity to follow on Twitter. His updates are hilarious!

Comments are closed.