You must login or register!
Inbound.org uses Twitter to register and create accounts. Your Twitter handle will also be your username here on Inbound and registration/login will enable you to submit content, post comments and create/edit your Inbound profile. Use the button below to verify your Twitter account.
Login or Register
I'm sorry to be a sceptic but "It’s NOT about the 100k, it’s about the people" can't be true if you're also following 90k people. You have 100k followers because you follow 90k people. I find it annoying when people brag about the quantity of followers they have - like it's some medal or badge, or some indication of how good they are at social media - when the follower ratio is poor. Now if it were 100k while only follow 1k, I'd be impressed. Just my opinion.
Great point Steve. If I'd seen she'd done that before I shared, I probably wouldn't have shared her post. Nevertheless, there are still some good principles to be gleaned from the article.
Hehe, it was the first thing I checked out! ;-) I wrote about Follow Ratio here (if no one minds the share): http://seono.co.uk/2012/04/17/smsceptic-true-twitter-authority-is-all-about-follow-ratio/). Oh yeah, I doubt don't the quality of the principles, but it's hard not to be sceptical given the ratio.
All the more reason I should've checked. Your post caused me to rethink my own follow back strategy on twitter.
Sorry...! TBH though I think yours is fine, Mark - I prefer to follow a few hundred but I know a few people who follow c. 1k and who drop-in/drop-out of their feed rather than to try and keep on top if it. I think that's fine. It's not like you're saying: "it’s about the people" but follow tens of thousands...
I'm still trying to pare mine down some though. Just takes a lot of time to sift through and decide who is really quality.
I liked how positive she is. I agree about the twitter ratio issue, but there are points to take away from this. Steve I am about to read your article!
That's very true, she is indeed very positive and there are other good points in the article - reading back my comments (above), I feel like I might've been a bit harsh. But the point still stands: her Follow Ratio suggests that she has that many followers because of the number <i>she's</i> following. To put it another way: if everything else in that article were true but she wasn't following 90k people, I doubt she'd have 100k followers (e.g. if she were following only 1k then she might only have 10-20k followers).