Following a Conversation
Gennefer Snowfield’s recent blog post “There’s Too Many ‘Me, Me, Me’s in ‘Follow Me” spurred an impacting conversation on who we follow on Twitter and why. More than 30 people commented, and the discussion that started on her blog carried into many twitter conversations. Gennefer emphasized the importance of quality over quantity, complementing the relationship builders and disparaging “friend collectors and wannabe gurus.”
People who wear their friend count like a badge of honor are annoying, and there is no prize for attaining a target number of friends. However, I do not think the situation is so black and white.
I like adding “random,” people on twitter not to increase my friend count but to add to the diversity of my tweet stream. I often use twitter’s search tool to find keywords that suggest people I may want to follow. Recently, I’ve used these keywords and phrases:
- Salman Rushdie
- James Joyce
- CPM
- “Check this out”
- Brazil
I have found that people who uses these keywords are often people I enjoy following. And when I am wrong, I simply unfollow them.
When in doubt, I follow first and unsubscribe later. That method works well for me. Other methods I use are described here.
I have found that my experience of twitter is different with more friends and followers than it was with fewer friends and followers. If I ask a question now, not only do my friends respond—I also receive responses from unexpected people with completely different backgrounds and experiences.
I confess. I’m completely addicted to cool ideas, spectacular links, and fresh insight. Following 100s of people has deeply satisfied my information addiction.
I personally agree that it’s ideal to connect to a network of people whose insights you value. However, I have no problem with people arbitrarily “friending” folks to find those people.
A few weeks ago I posted my criteria for following people back on twitter.
Do check out Gennefer Snowfield’s blog post. The conversation there is spectacular.
Related posts:
- Have you met Tuesdays Join the c
- Balanced Approachability on Twitter Let us go
- How to make Twitter relevant to you Millions o
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Great post, and a prime example of the power of conversation. I agree with your stance about diversity and expanding your network outside of your knowledgebase and/or specific interests. And I encourage it.
Building quality, substantive relationships does mean that everyone agrees nor does it mean that they share the exact same interests, likes or dislikes. A network comprised of people wholly likeminded would be akin to a Stepford civiliation, with everyone rebotically regurgitating the exact same thing. It would inhibit idea exchange and growth — and your own learning would stagnate. In fact, it was through the diverse folks from varying walks of life whom I follow within my own network, that added unique insights to my original post, and who helped to expanded my view points and further shape my thinking on the topic.
I have no issue with those who grow their network organically in the ways that you outline: through Twitter searches on keywords of interest or adding someone who’s background you find interesting. All of these are healthy, and I wholeheartedly support — and recommend it — for building an eclectic and thriving community.
Once again, it all comes back to intent. Your desire to follow numerous people, for example, is rooted in a desire to share and exchange with those people — and to enhance your thinking and development in the process. And there is nothing wrong with a large network. Even I follow nearly 600 people, and also agree that it opens up the conversation even further, and it has positively impacted my overall experience.
On either end of the spectrum, it’s not about the numbers.
My issue lies with those who arbitrarily collect followers merely for purposes of self-promotion with no interest — or intent — in connecting with them in a meaningful way. It’s with those who don’t bother with keyword searches or reviewing bios, and usually unfollow after 24 hours if they haven’t received a follow back. It’s with those who tweet about their followers and beg for people to help them reach a certain number with no vested interest in who actually comprises their network so long as the digits have a comma in between them.
It is when the numbers are solely about the numbers, and not the living, breathing people behind them, that I believe devalues the service and begins to deteriorate the overall community.
A true community, where its members are invested in the good of the whole over the good of themselves, becomes more than the sum of its parts, and offers value for all. But when people continually use the system for popularity, personal gain, and other shallow superlative-driven intentions, the community becomes less than the sum of its parts and, ultimately, benefits no one.
Comment by Gennefer Snowfield — December 3, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
Great dialogue you guys!
Comment by Tdukes — December 3, 2008 @ 7:50 pm