Everett Bogues reminded me in his ebook (Art of Being a Minimalist) Dunbar’s Number(law)

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/10/the-penalty-for-violating-dunbars-law.html

Although we can follow a bajillion people, ultimately you are not really having conversations with most of them. What’s social about that?

I started to maintain the people I follow to those I genuinely have conversations with… even if it is Mr. Alaskan Bass Fisher. But I have stopped following simply because they are following.

I will follow if conversation is flowing and ideas are being shared. That’s being social.

You’re right.

I’ve been thinking more about this since getting feedback like yours. In fact, getting a more rounded view on this quandary was part of the reason for writing this post.

In a nutshell: my brain wants to consume applicable, quantifiable-blah-blah-blah…

It isn’t that I have anything personally against Mr. Fly Fisher (or, for that matter, that sci-fi novel I want to read), it’s simply the result of a brain that has long valued the idea of efficiency and productivity too much.

Inspiration rarely comes from the space it is meant to inform and to limit one’s self to ‘the relevant’ too much tends to shrink our areas of interest rather than expand them.

I’ve noticed that just from opening this topic, I’ve started following people whom I wouldn’t have previously. It feels good to spread out.

Thank you for your comment. =)

That guy fly-fishing & tweeting in Alaska? That could be the guy who gives you an insight that the guy who shares your “central idea, passion or value-set” won’t ever think of.

While I agree that there should never be an obligation to follow someone – I suspect you’ll miss out on some amazing people simply because you didn’t think what they were tweeting about was ‘relevant.’

I try not to give much attention or credence to a person’s ‘numbers’. I’m certain that often times these inflated numbers are simply the result of a mutual auto-follow scheme (or other automation) that both parties have opted into. My guess is that there’s little or no value there. Possibly many of these followers are inactive accounts of past spam projects gone fizzle, which of course, aren’t monitored or valued since they are really an attempt at forcing a broadcast media strategy into a social media space.

There’s also the factors of trust, loyalty and relevance. My guess Derek, is that because of your reputation, your followers are significantly more apt to follow some tweet-advice that you offer than say…followers of someone whose been cramming irrelevant products and services down their throat. One has to wonder if those who follow spammer types ever even use Twitter since the tendency would be to unfollow a pushy tweeter who is not connecting with you in any relevant way.

I really like your example. It’s very illustrative of this problem. Thanks for including it. =)

Is there such a thing as ‘too open’?

A great example is this. The other day I had someone tweet one of my articles. She had more than 30,000 followers and sent me less than 10 clicks. Yet, today, someone else with less than 10,000 followers tweeted an article and sent more than 50 clicks.

Food for though…