Dear Ms. Mr. Anonymous
Thank you for the interesting comment/feedback you made to my complaint/kvetch regarding the Twitter ‘following/count’ situation. While it's true that it’s a free service, one wonders if the service would be better if users had to pay for it. Perhaps yes or perhaps it would be the same. We'll never know unless - heaven forbid - they start charging to tweet.
In your comments to my blog comments, you wrote:
“In the end, does it really matter whether anyone has 150 followers? Or 151? For most people, the follower count naturally fluctuates from one login/visit to another. That's just the way things work. Seriously, who cares?"
Can't speak for other Twitter users but actually, I obviously care as do many others who have added their names to the Twitter complaint lists. The fact that Twitter features the "following" and "follower" ...whatever you call them, means that there are others "out there" in Twitter-land, who feel the same way. As proof of this, singer John Mayer and Ashton Kutcher were determined to have the distinction of acquiring 1 million followers. Why, if this wasn’t important, would they make a point of attempting to get tweeters to follow them? Apparently, having people follow them was an indication of their success. See what I mean? In fact, many celebrities use Twitter to promote their popularity and increase their status.
So y'see, Ms. Mr. Anonymous - followers are important to some of us.
You also commented:
"Twitter is a great way to connect: Use it for its intended purpose and learn to live with the little inconsistencies that crop up along the way."
On that we both agree. It is a great way to connect but it's those littler consistencies along the way that get to you, like incorrect follower count. Ask me about it.
Yours in Tweeting,
Eleanor
No comments:
Post a Comment