Reza is the man! He and I met through the VA and now he and I are joined at the hip. Very talented individual.

Brilliant post. You have stated perfectly something I have fumbled over for a year. Putting this into the files for use in presentations (with credit, of course).

As the Dalai Lama says, “Though people often laugh when I say it, I myself always want more friends.” This is a perfect example of why that’s true. Thank you!

Wow…

well, I’m kinda a long time Mitch Joel fan.. and.. well.. I think I get where he’s coming from.. but.. yeah.. I kinda feel as you do as far as how to approach twitter.. and social media more generally..

I mean I followed a twitter link to this post thinking “yeah, I hate those twitter snobs, what’s social about them anyway?”

I guess… there’s may be a valid question as to.. the weight one should give to the virtue of your approach versus mitch’s,,, and how that weight might shift as an effect of being in your or mitch’s position… and blah blah blah..

but as a general rule of thumb.. I’m not big on Mitch’s approach.. though I don’t judge him on it.. it just means he feels more distant to me then.. someone else..

Ah yes, the twitter snob. I follow a whole lot of people that are quite the odd bunch. Some have fame and fortune, most are closer neighbors in the way in which they live their lives. Twitter can turn into a who’s who in social circles just as quickly as any other way of communicating. The issue with Twitter is that the persona created by the author of a 140 character stream has the opportunity to express themselves any which way they feel. It is our job as an individual to follow not only whom we find entertaining but also relevant to our lives.

I follow Rez, and I am a Veteran as well as a marketer. @thommooney.

Thanks for the post, Mark!

I love this article , why is there an ” A” list anyways
So many self serving , self promoting twitter types , that think they are it !
I call ” Bullshit ”
I love articles like this , well done
I’m gonna follow reza too
JP in Canada

Am I a twitter snob? Not sure.

I used to follow back almost everybody, but eventually I hit a point where I was getting no value from my twitter stream. So I stopped doing that and now only follow back people who converse with me regularly. That way, I am deepening the connection with those who connect with me and not just auto-following back people who are following me just to get followed.

@Mark I don’t sleep when I’m on east coast time on the west coast

Reza is amazing! All around great person, with a positive attitude spreading across the VA community!

I agree with everything you’re saying. But wasn’t Mitch’s main point – don’t follow random people? For example, don’t autofollow-back. Don’t worry about offending someone if you don’t choose to follow them.

I do believe every person is an amazingly unique beautiful soul with important things to say. But I can’t read every book, I can’t read every blog, and I can’t read every tweet. If I try, I only distance myself from my “true” connections.

Whoops…made a mistake. bit of a blonde moment

“I personally don’t tend follow people who mass follow and I always take time to check out peoples profiles, their tweets and whether they are “genuine” people like REZA!!!

Mark, Honestly I think you and Mitch are both right. Everyone has their own Twitter strategy like you said. Brandon makes an excellent point about lists, much of the filtering that Mitch is advocating can be achieved that way. A Tweetdeck column can clear much of the stream clutter, if that’s your goal.

I agree with Kennedy about Mitch’s post; I’m not sure he was advocating snobbery so much as suggesting restraint and discretion, per one’s own strategy. Releasing yourself of the pressure to follow everyone back, and instead strive to follow those who add substance to your stream. JMO.

That said, I love your line about the story, the person behind the picture. That’s one of my qualifiers for following. I am a Twitter snob and don’t follow just anyone. I look for the quality and variety of tweets, replies, and if there’s real engagement vs. just a broadcast channel of 50 pre-programmed tweets and RTs. FWIW.

You’re right, I only follow the most select and interesting people… but you forgot the most important part of that sentence… I only follow the most select and interesting people TO ME (why would I follow people I don’t find interesting or aren’t adding any value?).

Isn’t every online social network a personal/exclusive experience? Isn’t that the point? If you’re not selecting who you want to connect to and share with, isn’t that just, well… the entire Internet or the entire global population?

To me, the irony of your Blog post is that it’s actually a validation of what I Blogged about. Mark, you’re following over 14,000 people. I simply can’t cut through that noise to find a gem like Reza or Arminda (no one can and no one will). You’re following everybody and anybody, so people like them are lost in your followers list. It took my Blog post to create this reaction to it, to help me discover people like Reza and Arminda (thank you… I’m following them now)… and that was my point to begin with.

You wrongly turned this into some kind of “Twitter A-List” debate, which I don’t understand (granted, I’m the guy who used the word “snob” – mostly to strike a lively debate). There is no A-List… well, that’s not true. What makes Twitter unique is that each individual has their own A-List (it’s called the people they are following)… and that’s the point of my Blog post, too. I want to be able to grow and nurture that list of people that I find interesting. Does that mean that everybody gets on that list (or any other Twitter list of mine)? No, what would be the point?

Think of it this way: why follow anyone according to your strategy? Why not just long on to http://www.twitter.com and use it from there – this way, you’re following everybody… always.

The overall point of my Blog post is that I am able to find the most interesting and unique people when the people I am following are curating and editing their followers’ list (they’re telling who is great with that vote). This simply makes things more manageable and (to me) indicates that they too are not going to let every MLM rep and SEO guru join the fold (unless that’s their thing – in which case, I probably wouldn’t follow them).

Ultimately, what makes Twitter so great is that your Twitter experience is not my Twitter experience, and yet they are both sound and solid (which is why I usually run in the other direction when someone says that another person “doesn’t get it” – I didn’t this time because I consider you a friend, peer and a damn smart person).

So, what do you say, do we attack this via audio and orally duke it out (for the usual fun and laughs) on an upcoming Six Pixels Podcast? I think we’re due

Mitch, the issue for me (and I’ve repeatedly been told I’m in the minority on this when I’ve raised it myself) isn’t whether someone follows me. It’s whether that person follows me *back*. To me, that feels like the virtual equivalent of this real world exchange:

Me: “I’m interested in talking with you about what you say you’re interested in.”

Other person: “Great! Glad you like me. I’m not so interested in you but you can keep listening to me if you want.”

After which, I go off to find others who _are_ open to discussion. Maybe most of us never will talk … but we could. I haven’t said to that person … no, I look at you and judge you not to be worth leaving the door open to.

The bigger the lopsidedness, the worse it looks to me. I simply won’t follow someone who has a couple hundred thousand followers but only follows 10, because that person probably has an RSS feed, which is what that person’s Twitter account most likely is…not a platform for interaction and discussion. Personally, I’d be embarrassed to be in that position (not that I’m in any danger of that).

This is one of the few “new” aspects of social media: When someone follows you or sends you a Facebook request, you do have to make a decision. It’s binary and it’s public. Once you’ve “said” it, you can’t unsay it. That’s why I set the threshold very low.

It does depend what you’re there for. If you look at it as a news mechanism, then no damage done. But if you look at it as a social network (as we know Twitter’s founders apparently do not), then following back — or not — is a meaningful statement by the person making the choice. I suppose the ambiguity of Twitter doesn’t help us settle this discussion.

I’ve said many times that there’s obviously no way I could be carrying on meaningful conversations with all of the 7,500 accounts I follow on Twitter. But I am constantly, daily, discovering new things in there, and I am amazed by how well the process works. For one thing, the overlapping spheres of people you choose to “follow” tend to intersect at interesting new connections. It happens all the time. That’s the serendipity of it.

I’ve been asked more than once why I take it so personally, and my answer now is, “Because it is personal. There are persons involved.” People feel these social interactions the same way they do in “real life.” For what it’s worth, discussions around this point–what constitutes “friendship” online–always seem to generate the deepest discussions. The question is clearly central to why we’re here.

Again, I do thank you for touching it off, and we’re all obviously after the same thing, ultimately–better connectedness.

@Will – are you insulted when every girl at the bar doesn’t succumb to your advances or offers to buy them a drink? Do you accept all advances and drinks? Just because you’re into me, it doesn’t mean I have to be into you… and because of that, it also doesn’t mean that you have to stop trying to connect and change my mind Some of the best relationships take time.

@Will – that doesn’t sound like much fun… for the girl or the boyfriends… Try to find one where you can be special – the only one

@Will – nah, sometimes, it takes more than that first attempt. Persistence is good (sometimes).

@mitch Well, to each his own!

I was asked to check this post after a tweet about followers, specifically about not following those that don’t connect.

If that makes me a snob, then I’ll take that title. Honestly though, I’m more of a not tell you who to follow and I don’t want you telling me who or who not to follow.

I’m assertive about blocking spammers but don’t block folks I don’t care to follow back. I don’t ask folks to follow me either though and don’t expect it just because I follow them.

I don’t believe there is an implied social contract there. Follow or don’t but I’ll base my follows off of your behavior. If I don’t follow you it’s not because I hate you, your politics, or your religion It will be about your twitter behavior or lack there of. No tweets? Tweets are only links to your blog? No pic and no bio?

Each person should choose how they follow or not and not be cowed under by snobs, anti-snobs or anyone else including me.

Cheers, happy tweeting,
@tojosan

Sorry, I have to side with Mitch on this.

The vast majority of people who follow me NEVER engage. They NEVER reach out, even once, to comment, retweet or ask me a question.

I follow people who I find interesting, and I follow those who engage.

I do not return a click for a click, because that just invites noise into my stream. It’s noise, because I have no basis to understand the context.

Follow whomever you want, with whatever strategy works for you… but for your own sake, HAVE a strategy and a system, and DON’T expect everyone else to follow yours.

This isn’t a debate. This is grandstanding- one admitting his bait is labeling a practice (which his opponent admits he himself does, sifting through follows) as SNOBBERY and the opponent attacks with a specific example against a general case argument. Everyone does it their own way, and none are wrong… for them… move on folks nothing to see here

One thing I’d kinda add is.. in earlier days.. one of those early attempts to think about influence or recommend people to follow.. you’d get so and so recommended to you… and they’d be followed by.. @Chrisbrogan and @Pistachio.. and you’d think “well that’s absolutely a worthless endorsement.. they follow everybody.

We’d have conversations about all this stuff.. at the local social media breakfast or whatever.. and at least at the time it seemed like the thing to do was follow back whoever followed you.. but.. then this was very early days..

I’m feeling like this conversation.. to some degree or another follows this kinda of thread.. “is social media really social..” or “does social media scale..” or.. at the very least it’s an attention economy question, right?

I think the point that it’s important to be open to seeing the possibilities of new people.. or you think of that kind of Indian tradition of bowing with your hands clasped.. as if in prayer, bowing to the divinity in the person.. I think.. it should probably be a best practice of some sort.. to have this somewhere in you’re social media mix.. I don’t know that it has to be on twitter but.. that has always seemed to me like a logical place for it..

It’s only through this kind of openness.. be it socially.. or in the mind… or perhaps in how we manage stuff.. that gives the opportunity for innovation to happen.

Mitch – I’m not the one who used the words “having an appearance of exclusivity”. I don’t want one, nor need one.

I’m also not the one who chose the word “snob”. What word is more tied with elitism?

How many of my followers do I know? – not sure I can give you an exact figure. What I can give you is the truth that I have a greater chance to know them because I’m not worried about any of the notions mentioned above.

Words matter Mitch.

@Frank. What I actually said was…

“Curating, editing and pruning who you follow is an important step. It helps those new connections sort the wheat from the chaff. It helps quantify that you’re in this to really connect. It also sets a standard that you’re not going to accept the smart people and the spammers as the same. It says that you’re going to take the time (at least a second) to ensure that you’re following someone of value. That sounds better than following everyone and giving off the allure of being social, when in reality you’re probably filtering them out and not helping the next person who connects with you to better understand what interested you (granted, if you’re a brand – or a corporate account – none of this applies: why not follow back everybody who is following you?).”

I’m with you, Mark. Differing voices and opinions makes it a healthy and equalized eco-system. Pot shots, etc… make the real (and potential) clients gun shy. No logical reason to do that.

Mitch Joel’s tweet drew me to your post – I’m happy to discover your blog.

And that’s the point. For me anyway.

I don’t follow everyone who follows me on Twitter. And I don’t think I’m missing the point.

I follow :

a) people who engage me … they seem to think we have something in common and I’m pleased to check them out at that point and follow back.

b) people my network points me towards … they’re not my influencers for nothing. If they think you’re interesting, I might just take the time to check you out and follow you (or read your blog

c) people I discover naturally through search tools etc. I do my own legwork.

I advise corporate clients (not brands – individuals – brands could be an exception, depending) to resist the automatic reaction of following everyone who follows them.

People who are starting out on Twitter already find it overwhelming. My advice to clients who are testing the waters is to choose a niche and select 20 people to follow who also interested in that niche.

I tell them Twitter isn’t Facebook and they shouldn’t feel badly if they don’t follow their sister-in-law or their buddy back. That’s not the point of Twitter.

They can grow their network from there when they’re ready, but until then can comfortably begin to grasp the power of Twitter.

I’m part of the Twitter old guard – I was on it when it was still a “what are you doing right now” platform. And I’m still not automatically following everyone who follows me. And I never will.

The bottom line for me is that there are tons of Rezas out there (unique as he is) – what I mean is that there are tons of people out there with great stories. In fact, we’re surrounded by them when we take public transport or go to the theatre. We can’t engage with absolutely everyone whose path we cross – it would be overwhelming. Opportunities may pass us by, but we’re able to value the opportunities that are within our reach. And so it is with Twitter.

Now that I’m following you, Mark, I look forward to discovering Reza

Reza, I’m pleased to meet you!

Mark, another great thought-provoking post.

I’m trying to build a following and figure out who the best people are to follow. I would venture to say that you and Mitch are on common ground with the idea that those two goals are not mutually exclusive.

I struggle with the process as I try to learn the best way to do Twitter and not get overwhelmed by the stream. I have become more focused on having individual conversations, highlighting great posts, and participating fully in hashtag chats. That has resulted in a lot more followers who I’m familiar with (mostly through the chats) and led to me following more people in the midst of chats. I do wonder though:
1. Do you (or others) have any suggestions on figuring out who the spammers are that you want to block (i.e., how to figure out which of your new followers you want to follow). Is it as simple as just taking the time to click on their streams and see if you see “value?”

2. How do you organize your Followers into a manageable flow so you can keep track of all the Tweet goodness that you feel can be found. If I blink I miss 30-50 tweets. Please be more detailed than “create a list,” because the devil is in the details.

Again, great job. Thanks for igniting a great discussion. And thanks to Mitch Joel for his patient and thoughtful participation.

Peter

Thanks for the post. Having recently met Reza for the Magic Carpet Ride Tweetup we’re hosting on Oct. 28, I can vouch for him. He may not have the highest following on Twitter, but he’s got passion and a positive attitude.

When I first got started with Twitter last year when I started my performance art project, I automatically followed about 95% of those who followed me. I gave them a personal thank you back. When that became overwhelming, I talked to my friend Chris Pirillo, and in the process of helping to write some of the tips in his 140 Twitter Tips eBook, I came to the conclusion that the point of Twitter is not collecting the most followers, but cultivating a community.

I would imagine everyone has some sort of selection process in place once they pass a critical mass. I too have not followed back certain MLM’s, porn figures who would spam me with pictures, men who remind me of sexual predators, and obnoxious troll Twitterers who cannot spell. is it snobbery? I’d actually like to call it DISCRETION.

Imei

@mark-
when I suggested grandstanding, it is because there is no real debate here.
Your position is not FALSE, it’s confusing and not REALLY controversial.

You suggest that Mitch is inappropriately siphoning who to follow while you take the stand that you should pretty much follow everyone, otherwise, according to your example (the specific), you might miss that “diamond in the rough.”
But you clearly admit that you will filter, and then more importantly suggest that whatever strategy on Twitter makes sense to the individual is what is right.
Oy, which is it?
The controversy does not come from you disagreeing with Mitch, but rather that you are arguing with a general policy with a specific case.
Your rule of “you just never know” taken to its illogical extreme means, follow everyone, no matter what. (ie dont exclude those pesky spammers, why? you never know)
But you DO know (as you limit who you follow)- this is a matter of degree or perspective and the real rule is something akin to any diet: you have to find the right one that works for you…

which you had pretty much admitted in your piece.

reminds me of my old debate coach’s warning not to be “two ships passing in the night” to paraphrase Longfellow

Of all the names I should have no problem spelling correctly you’d think one would be Mitch’s. Sorry ’bout the typos.

I have nothing to say that hasn’t already been said here (serves me right for waiting so long to comment). But you know what I love about your relationship with Mitch?! You comment on one another’s blogs and let the rest of us see the very intelligent and fun debate. LOVE THAT!!

I was wondering about the value of following tweeps with >20000 followers. Most follow back, some don’t. Convo with them is a chance occurrence and that’s OK, I understand they can’t reply to everyone. I consider it serendipitous that I discovered this blog and pleased to meet Reza today.

Oh, and I guess I met Reza via a possible bot or RSS feed via Twitter.

That’s sorta kinda disappointing.

Hello. My name is Jules and I am a recovering Twitter snob.

Clicking on the link that my trusted Twitter friend posted, I was saying to myself, “I am for sure a Twitter Snob. I totally on team Mitch because I like a guy with two first names and I completely agree that you can’t possibly engage with every single person that follows you.”

Then Mark got me with the super-funny, heroic disabled veteran and I crumbled. Who the hell am I to only follow people I find impressive oh, I mean interesting (as if it matters if I make my feed look upscale) or engaging (ie. will spend their precious time telling me how pithy I am.)

Everyone should follow whoever they want and I agree with being selective, but I am changing my snobby ways. From now on, everyone gets a follow (real people, not bots or brands) and it will stay that way until they: make me mad; say something stupid regarding politics, religion or sex; or I simply cannot take their tedious, mundane updates any longer.

Hey, I may not be any nicer after I follow everyone back, but being a reformed Twitter snob makes me feel better. Life is short, be nice.

@JulesZunichPR

I have always seen Twitter as a party. There’s the popular people, and then there’s the crowd.

If I was one of the “elite”, I hope I would walk across the room, return smiles, shake hands, and stop for a chat and a laugh. I would want to help find people from the crowd who need to be heard (Mark and Reza?). I would not want to walk around with a sense of superiority or entitlement, brushing off people who try to talk to me.

What I would absolutely hate to be is someone who is worried to be associated with the crowd out of fear how that reflects on my status.

When I joined Twitter, the kindness of a lot of people just following me back made me speechless. I had no track record, no followers, no idea what I was doing; they just gave me a chance. Not wanting to sound corny, but I thought that a world with an unwritten policy like that had come a long way.

I do understand that having thousands of Twitter followers creates a sorting problem. If you just have one Twitter Stream, I suppose you won’t get any value out of it. But when you put the people who have specific meaning to you on a list, you can easily return the favor of a follow without interfering with selected topics or people.

That means you have a colorful Main Twitter Stream that you can visit when you have some time. The people on mine have surprised me, made me laugh, cry, learn, reconsider, {grow} And no, it’s not like following the general stream on Twitter.com. I think we all agree that we would not follow the spammers, trashers and self-promoters that make a huge portion of the tweets on there.

Here is the other end of the spectrum: I worship Seth Godin’s writing. I think he’s a genius. I quote and refer him all the time and I would pre-order any book he writes without hesitation. But I stopped following him on Twitter. At my party, I’d rather have that space and time for someone who may have an interest in having a conversation with me.

@Dagi — Simply superb comment. Well said. Thank you!

hello Friends

I’m still amazed at how a negative thing has turned into so many positives. We’ve gone from a debate about exclusion, to all of us showing support for one another. I’ve begun to get a feel for what Mitch is talking about in his post. I’ve been inundated with a healthy dose of Twitter love (Thank You), and it’s starting to become a little busy I definitely have a major need for organization and curation. Having said that, I think I’ll solve my problem by making one big list named {grow} Peace, Love, and understanding!

Reza

Any gathering with Jules, Jen, Gini, Dagi and Reza sounds inviting to me. What an interesting group the {grow} party is. And I’m sure Mark welcomes Seth and Mtich to drop in anytime too. Come one, come all. And come as you are.

I learn something new here everytime, literally everytime, I stop by. Never quit learning!

I share your policy of ruthlessly blocking spammers from following me (I also block those who are obviously rightwingers) and I only follow those I know that I will read because I have the time and they say interesting things.

Hey Mark

Spot on post and one that is in line with a post I made on my own blog a few weeks ago (http://ow.ly/32nb8).

Your post is a tangible reason in the follow or nto argument and we are all ultimately looking for interesting people to follow sucha as Reza

Thanks for bringing it (and him) to the fore!

Jamie

@Billy: I meant to comment on your comment last week. Thank you! I’d go anywhere with Jules, Jen, Dagi, Reza, you, and Mark!

Hail to the twitter snobs! Some people seem to think that “Freedom of speech” means “obligation to speak constantly” and “obligation of everyone else to listen”

Sorry, not me! Just because someone likes what I have to say and decides to follow me on Twitter, does not in any way make me feel obligated to follow back and pretend he/she is interesting if their tweets doesn’t catch my interest.

Why not just trade phone numbers with 40.000 people who chose to go to the same ball game as you?

If focusing on quality of content instead of quantity of followers, makes me a snob, then by all means call me a snob!

@Mitch Joel – Twist Image I agree here with you Mitch. Pruning is very important, and for me being selective is also. So many corporate accounts don’t follow back though, but they should. Guess their numbers look better Personally i like being friendly but at the same time look for VALUE in people and their content as well…

The elite are just filtering us out, no doubt—like sheep. Mark has a point here also, behind every image is someone amazing, a human with a wonderful story, just like us.

End of the day if you’d like success in SM, it’s not the ELITE we want to attract guys (who have an extremely myopic view and hunt and gather together, for the most part), it’s the masses and volumes of ordinary people out there….

Why don’t you reply to people in a thread?

Having unfollowed, then refollowed you due to that article on why the social media elite don’t respond to us. I decided to check out your blog/site thoroughly. It has been a hoot.
I like the style of it, and the content is substantial.
I signed up for your conversation. So let’s go!
I posted a tweet aimed at your recent post that I parked the brakes at, and I mentioned you in my own blog. It was a springboard for my thoughts on tribes. I have risen to the top of a couple and walked away, sort of. Now I blog to support a small business bootstrapping effort I have begun.
Thanks.
See you on the waves.

My idea of quality is if the profile passes my anti-spam tests (IE if its a feed full of quotes or links or no bio I don’t follow). I follow.  If I start to notice nothing but selling afterwards I drop them. But recently I have stopped following recommendations of top tweeters, why? They’re boring. I looked at my list of “mentors” and had to shake my head. With a few exceptions they had gone from interacting to talking to you. Granted some of these profiles had tens of thousands of followers. But they can’t take the time to say hi to one of them during the day.
I promote my books on twitter, but I also talk to a lot of my followers and try to keep people entertained too. Because I use twitter first to network, second make friends, third “oh by the way, I write books”. Its been working for me.

: )

I value Mitch Joel’s idea and I think he’s awesome and I understand the filtering and all that stuff he’s so concerned about. However, I think people like Danny Brown and you will be loved even more because as Brian Solis always puts it, “Engage or Die”

A good strategy I think!  Thanks!

That is a weird one for sure Al. Thanks for commenting!

Hi Mark,

Twitter snobbery and Klout seem to go hand-in-hand. When I look at results I’m always amused.  More on that in a minute.

We met on Twitter. Would it have happened if we didn’t follow each other? I don’t know, but I doubt it. My follow policy is identical to yours except that I also unfollow people who I don’t know and haven’t been active for 90 days or more, It’s a community housekeeping thing.

The primary reason I follow people back is so they can direct message me. Most of my incoming DM are from people who don’t have a large community. Like you and Reza, the conversations almost always lead to something special. If you read my Twitter stream there are often nonsensical conversations because part of them are via DM or email. My community members tend to use multiple tools when we chat.

Klout doesn’t measure DM’s. It doesn’t measure email exchanges. It doesn’t measure real life conversations. And, because it doesn’t (can’t) measure those things, it doesn’t really measure influence. I’ve spent a lot of time testing and quantifying Twitter activity for my clients. I’ve found that the “influencers” as defined by Klout get retweets but they don’t drive traffic. There have been many times that the number of retweets have exceeded the number of clicks. This means that people are retweeting without checking out what they retweet.

But when the people who are not worth the Twitter snobs follow back share links, something different happens. The clicks always exceed the retweets. Could it be that they are more influential? That their connections trust them more? That the relationships they’ve established are genuine?

I think so.