Comments on: The Pareto Principle of Twitter Spam http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Ed http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/#comment-4391 Ed Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:07:16 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/26/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/#comment-4391 What too few do, is weed out follow-ers, instead of only junk they're follow-ing.<br> If everybody blocked the junk, Twitter would be a far less attractive hunting ground for the spammers, etc. <br>It should not need to be an hourly exercise to clean your following list,<br>unless you follow many without checking 1st.<br><br>I know from whence I speak, having blocked and helped nuke a record amount ;)<br>I have less spam followers than anyone per capita, and would have roughly 10,000 followers<br>if I hadn't blocked so many from '07 to mid-'09. <br>I also scare them off by threatening those who cheat with "get followers" software.<br>(Hint: Twitter can see and is recording every account cheating)<br><br>When an account is blocked 10 times, it triggers an automatic review by the @Spam team,<br>who generally know at 1st glance if they're banning them or not.<br>They had to make it that high, because immature fools in arguments with friends/rivals etc<br>were acting very MySpace and lobbying different classmates/trailer park mates<br>to gang up so an opposing person would be banned.<br><br>But if far more people blocked, the worst would be flushed out<br>much more quickly, leaving our neighborhood cleaner, sooner :) What too few do, is weed out follow-ers, instead of only junk they're follow-ing.
If everybody blocked the junk, Twitter would be a far less attractive hunting ground for the spammers, etc.
It should not need to be an hourly exercise to clean your following list,
unless you follow many without checking 1st.

I know from whence I speak, having blocked and helped nuke a record amount ;)
I have less spam followers than anyone per capita, and would have roughly 10,000 followers
if I hadn't blocked so many from '07 to mid-'09.
I also scare them off by threatening those who cheat with “get followers” software.
(Hint: Twitter can see and is recording every account cheating)

When an account is blocked 10 times, it triggers an automatic review by the @Spam team,
who generally know at 1st glance if they're banning them or not.
They had to make it that high, because immature fools in arguments with friends/rivals etc
were acting very MySpace and lobbying different classmates/trailer park mates
to gang up so an opposing person would be banned.

But if far more people blocked, the worst would be flushed out
much more quickly, leaving our neighborhood cleaner, sooner :)

]]> By: Ed http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/#comment-6330 Ed Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:07:16 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/26/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/#comment-6330 What too few do, is weed out follow-ers, instead of only junk they're follow-ing.<br> If everybody blocked the junk, Twitter would be a far less attractive hunting ground for the spammers, etc. <br>It should not need to be an hourly exercise to clean your following list,<br>unless you follow many without checking 1st.<br><br>I know from whence I speak, having blocked and helped nuke a record amount ;)<br>I have less spam followers than anyone per capita, and would have roughly 10,000 followers<br>if I hadn't blocked so many from '07 to mid-'09. <br>I also scare them off by threatening those who cheat with "get followers" software.<br>(Hint: Twitter can see and is recording every account cheating)<br><br>When an account is blocked 10 times, it triggers an automatic review by the @Spam team,<br>who generally know at 1st glance if they're banning them or not.<br>They had to make it that high, because immature fools in arguments with friends/rivals etc<br>were acting very MySpace and lobbying different classmates/trailer park mates<br>to gang up so an opposing person would be banned.<br><br>But if far more people blocked, the worst would be flushed out<br>much more quickly, leaving our neighborhood cleaner, sooner :) What too few do, is weed out follow-ers, instead of only junk they're follow-ing.
If everybody blocked the junk, Twitter would be a far less attractive hunting ground for the spammers, etc.
It should not need to be an hourly exercise to clean your following list,
unless you follow many without checking 1st.

I know from whence I speak, having blocked and helped nuke a record amount ;)
I have less spam followers than anyone per capita, and would have roughly 10,000 followers
if I hadn't blocked so many from '07 to mid-'09.
I also scare them off by threatening those who cheat with “get followers” software.
(Hint: Twitter can see and is recording every account cheating)

When an account is blocked 10 times, it triggers an automatic review by the @Spam team,
who generally know at 1st glance if they're banning them or not.
They had to make it that high, because immature fools in arguments with friends/rivals etc
were acting very MySpace and lobbying different classmates/trailer park mates
to gang up so an opposing person would be banned.

But if far more people blocked, the worst would be flushed out
much more quickly, leaving our neighborhood cleaner, sooner :)

]]> By: Ed Shahzade http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/#comment-4390 Ed Shahzade Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:07:16 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/26/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/#comment-4390 What too few do, is weed out follow-ers, instead of only junk they're follow-ing.<br> If everybody blocked the junk, Twitter would be a far less attractive hunting ground for the spammers, etc. <br>It should not need to be an hourly exercise to clean your following list,<br>unless you follow many without checking 1st.<br><br>I know from whence I speak, having blocked and helped nuke a record amount ;)<br>I have less spam followers than anyone per capita, and would have roughly 10,000 followers<br>if I hadn't blocked so many from '07 to mid-'09. <br>I also scare them off by threatening those who cheat with "get followers" software.<br>(Hint: Twitter can see and is recording every account cheating)<br><br>When an account is blocked 10 times, it triggers an automatic review by the @Spam team,<br>who generally know at 1st glance if they're banning them or not.<br>They had to make it that high, because immature fools in arguments with friends/rivals etc<br>were acting very MySpace and lobbying different classmates/trailer park mates<br>to gang up so an opposing person would be banned. What too few do, is weed out follow-ers, instead of only junk they're follow-ing.
If everybody blocked the junk, Twitter would be a far less attractive hunting ground for the spammers, etc.
It should not need to be an hourly exercise to clean your following list,
unless you follow many without checking 1st.

I know from whence I speak, having blocked and helped nuke a record amount ;)
I have less spam followers than anyone per capita, and would have roughly 10,000 followers
if I hadn't blocked so many from '07 to mid-'09.
I also scare them off by threatening those who cheat with “get followers” software.
(Hint: Twitter can see and is recording every account cheating)

When an account is blocked 10 times, it triggers an automatic review by the @Spam team,
who generally know at 1st glance if they're banning them or not.
They had to make it that high, because immature fools in arguments with friends/rivals etc
were acting very MySpace and lobbying different classmates/trailer park mates
to gang up so an opposing person would be banned.

]]> By: Stuart Foster http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/#comment-6331 Stuart Foster Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:43:13 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/26/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/#comment-6331 Personally? I love following the psychic cat bloggers (maybe that's just me though). Personally? I love following the psychic cat bloggers (maybe that's just me though).

]]> By: jlbraaten http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/#comment-6332 jlbraaten Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:49:01 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/26/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/#comment-6332 You're ahead of the pack again, Chris. While everyone else is still talking about how to get involved with Social Media, you're looking forward and ensuring that people that do use it can keep it useful. Thanks for the post! You're ahead of the pack again, Chris. While everyone else is still talking about how to get involved with Social Media, you're looking forward and ensuring that people that do use it can keep it useful. Thanks for the post!

]]> By: Stuart Foster http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/#comment-4389 Stuart Foster Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:43:13 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/26/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/#comment-4389 Personally? I love following the psychic cat bloggers (maybe that's just me though). Personally? I love following the psychic cat bloggers (maybe that's just me though).

]]> By: jlbraaten http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/#comment-4388 jlbraaten Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:49:01 +0000 http://www.christopherspenn.com/2009/08/26/the-pareto-principle-of-twitter-spam/#comment-4388 You're ahead of the pack again, Chris. While everyone else is still talking about how to get involved with Social Media, you're looking forward and ensuring that people that do use it can keep it useful. Thanks for the post! You're ahead of the pack again, Chris. While everyone else is still talking about how to get involved with Social Media, you're looking forward and ensuring that people that do use it can keep it useful. Thanks for the post!

]]>