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.