<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Vinicius Vacanti - Latest Comments in Your Twitter Followers Aren&amp;#039;t Real</title><link>http://viniciusvacanti.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://viniciusvacanti.disqus.com/your_twitter_followers_aren039t_real/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:15:20 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Your Twitter Followers Aren&amp;#039;t Real</title><link>http://viniciusvacanti.com/post/50657737#comment-8707699</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I knew, I had followers even before I posted anything.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Cool girl</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:15:20 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Your Twitter Followers Aren&amp;#039;t Real</title><link>http://viniciusvacanti.com/post/50657737#comment-6239517</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Those accounts are good examples of twitter accounts that aren't "really" following you.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">vacanti</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:06:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Your Twitter Followers Aren&amp;#039;t Real</title><link>http://viniciusvacanti.com/post/50657737#comment-6214994</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Twitter users like Mc Hammer,Ijustine,BJMendelson,WholeFoods,coldplay,DellOutlet,twitter,cnnbrk,THE_REAL_SHAQ,davemorin,FragDolls are all using a Marketing Firm or Program to get followers. Its obvious- no picture-following the same 20 people&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">CrazyGabe.Dj</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:39:18 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Your Twitter Followers Aren&amp;#039;t Real</title><link>http://viniciusvacanti.com/post/50657737#comment-2436308</link><description>&lt;p&gt;@adrigonzo  I agree with your comments.  It is asking a lot of people to constantly participate.  The purpose of my analysis was to capture the reach of twitter messages.  That is, when Scoble tweets, how many people actually read it.  The only way to gauge that currently is to look at the number of followers but, as the analysis above indicates, those followers aren't reading those tweets.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;By "real" I just mean followers that were actually reading that person's tweets.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">vacanti</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:05:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Your Twitter Followers Aren&amp;#039;t Real</title><link>http://viniciusvacanti.com/post/50657737#comment-2436277</link><description>&lt;p&gt;@TNVWBOY  I think that's an excellent idea and one that shouldn't be too difficult to implement with the structured @ system of replies.  Other stats you could look at are:  retweets and click through rates on links shared through tweets&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">vacanti</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:02:21 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Your Twitter Followers Aren&amp;#039;t Real</title><link>http://viniciusvacanti.com/post/50657737#comment-2436246</link><description>&lt;p&gt;@dalka&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I did not look at long tail accounts but do agree that it would be an interesting analysis.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">vacanti</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:59:20 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Your Twitter Followers Aren&amp;#039;t Real</title><link>http://viniciusvacanti.com/post/50657737#comment-2428397</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is another example of social networking's dark side - if someone signs up for a site and isn't an "active" participant in the community that site is trying to set up, they just don't count.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's great to want to encourage people to participate but is it really necessary for someone to be tweeting all day long about every single thing they're up to in order to be considered "real"? That seems unfair and is assuming that all people who sign up for any given site have both the time and desire to constantly update/participate on that site.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;@adrigonzo&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;And yes, I'm a "real" Twitter user.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Adrienne</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:15:20 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Your Twitter Followers Aren&amp;#039;t Real</title><link>http://viniciusvacanti.com/post/50657737#comment-2424235</link><description>&lt;p&gt;@Ru  Great points.  The vast majority of the non "real" followers were accounts that were created, had a few followers, never updated or last updated months ago.  In other words, they were just people who tried out the site for a little bit and decided it wasn't for them.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">vacanti</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:02:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Your Twitter Followers Aren&amp;#039;t Real</title><link>http://viniciusvacanti.com/post/50657737#comment-2424190</link><description>&lt;p&gt;While this is a bit too simplistic, it's certainly factual. I don't think frequency is the right metric though.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Did you analyze long tail accounts? That would be far more interesting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;@dalka&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Dalka</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:00:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Your Twitter Followers Aren&amp;#039;t Real</title><link>http://viniciusvacanti.com/post/50657737#comment-2421938</link><description>&lt;p&gt;@tnvboy that is an excellent point. I know I have quite a few people who respond to me through twitter then another half that does not. I have no idea if they benefit from me either for these individuals never engage in conversation nor share links. I do check their blogs but we are not in social media for the same reasons (I think). Since I cannot *physically* read them then I have to read their blogs to see if they benefit from anything I say? Since I am not gaining from them that is when I decide it is best to un-follow? I appreciate you pointing this out. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">TheJennTaFur</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:14:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Your Twitter Followers Aren&amp;#039;t Real</title><link>http://viniciusvacanti.com/post/50657737#comment-2421521</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I like this concept.  I know many of my follower (not that I have lots) are following me but not necessarily reading my tweets and certainly not engaging with me.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think that might be a more interesting statistic.  How many of their thousands of followers actually respond and participate with the person they are following?  If I were to guess I would say it's going to be under 50%.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">TNVWBOY</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:30:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Your Twitter Followers Aren&amp;#039;t Real</title><link>http://viniciusvacanti.com/post/50657737#comment-2416247</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think a lot of people use twitter to keep up to date. They are active but more as spectators than news sharers. The follow count limit is an unusual criteria for considering someone as a real follower. Many people follow 500+ and divide them into groups via a client such as tweetdeck. I realize you said it is not perfect, but I think this is too imperfect.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ru Viljoen</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 03:49:44 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>