Tag Archives: twitter

Who wants a followback?


Thinking of following me on twitter? Assuming that you are already following me and wants a followback from me, be sure to comply to these rules:

  • Be sure to be able to tweet in English. I won’t followback you if you tweet mostly in other languages than English. Sure there are exceptions but don’t put much expectation on it.
  • Don’t ask for a followback. I’ll decide who to follow after having enough time observing your tweets. I’ll sure followback you if you match the criteria but I won’t tell you specifically what are my criteria for a followback.
  • Refrain from using profanity. I hate seeing F-bombs dropped in my timeline as much as I hate to use them myself. Once in a while is fine but to see them for almost everyday is no fun to me.
  • Please prove to me that you’re human by mentioning me at least once or replying to at least one of my tweets. This way I’d be able to know that you’re human and not just some bots lurking around in twitter.
  • Be a regular in twitter because I’m a regular tweeple too. It doesn’t mean that you have to devote most of your online time on twitter but at least tweet regularly so that I know I’m not going to followback a dead people.
  • Engage in a conversation with me or at least reply to my mentions. I won’t followback anybody who aren’t interested in having a two-way conversation with me, even if you’re happen to be the so-called “twitter celebrity”.
  • Don’t do something like “tweet-reporting”. This is usually done by ustream fags who can’t help but to tweet everything they see on the livecasts coupled with vague comments. Not to mention those who like to tweet every occurrence in an event (like every goal in a football match or every announcement in a console launches.
  • Be sure to read my other related article as well.

Why do you hate Facebook?


Facebook logo
Image via Wikipedia

The above question is targeted to everybody who read this post. Believe me I’ve asked myself the same question before, and so does to some other people I met online or offline. Regardless of what they feel or think about Facebook, different people came up with different reasons of why they like or hate it. For most loyal Facebook users they have mixed thought about it. At some point they would like to continue using it though there re times they are complaining about it. For haters things are more ‘interesting’ Some of them started calling names on it such as F***book, Failbook and even Fagsbook.

Since I’ve asked myself the same question, I’ve come across some people who share the same sentiment with me. Actually I don’t care why people like or hate it, except for people who think Facebook is a crap but hypocritically looking for Facebook alternatives. I mean if they hate Facebook because of its ‘social’ nature then why look for the alternative like Diaspora or No-Fad? For me the reason I hate Facebook is the security and privacy concerns. Yes, it’s true that a user can tune the settings to suit their personal preferences but two years with Facebook taught me it’s not that easy.

I remember when I was still a Facebook user, the user personal page was loaded with AJAX-heavy elements and annoying (or should I say irrelevant) ads. I’ve always have issues with AJAX so any so-called web 2.0 service with loads of AJAX will be automatically deemed as ‘bad’ to me no matter how awesome they are. Alright, I maybe a regular at Twitter but from my experience Twitter does not rely too much on AJAX and I found it is easier to my browser and my internet connection. Regarding ads, it’s not a new thing that Facebook users actually see ads that are displayed based on their profile.

So how does Facebook’s ads works? This maybe a rumor but from unofficial surveys conducted all over the net, the ads are always consistent with users’ preferences, although in my case many of them are irrelevant but still most of them are based on my interest. I’m not really blaming Facebook for that because that’s how they make money and luckily I have adblocker extension installed in my browser so I could get rid of them. however I still personally think using a user’s personal interest to look for a marketing target is somewhat unethical so I hope the rumor is not true.

Actually what annoys me the most about Facebook is I frequently and continuously mistaken as an acquaintance by people who actually don’t know me in real life. Yeah, maybe it’s my fault for not using my real life picture but it’s not entirely my fault either. Half of it is caused by Facebook limitation of not allowing me to use my full name. Yes, my real name is too long but it is not supported by the naming convention adopted by Facebook. In that sense, Facebook is more like targeted toward western users and not the people from this region who mostly does not follow western naming scheme.

So what is my stance on Facebook? I seriously don’t recommend it for anybody though I won’t stop anybody from using it but I have to warn you, Facebook is not a platform for people who want a serious social life. If you want a proper social life, get real friends in real life. Facebook is just not a place to make new friends because it virtually allows anybody to add anybody as friends because all you need to do is to search for some name and the result containing countless of people with the same or similar name will appear. True, this may be a bit unethical but relying on online services for ‘true’ friends is not a good thing to begin with.

Don’t follow me on twitter if…


This is icon for social networking website. Th...
Image via Wikipedia

Don’t follow me on twitter if:

  1. You’re expecting an immediate followback from me. I need time to observe who are following me before I can decide to followback or not.
  2. You’re expecting a followback from me, only to brag about how many followers you have and claiming that you’re popular. Remember, I don’t simply followback people just because they are following me.
  3. You’re planning on stalking on me to wait for the moment I screwed up and then use it against me.
  4. You’re gonna shamelessly request for a followback. If you want a followback don’t ask me for it. I’ll followback you only if I think it’s worth it.
  5. You’re vulgar. I hate to see f-word in my timeline.
  6. You don’t have at least one common interest with me.
  7. You’re a marketer who want to approach me to sell me stuff. If I want to buy something I’ll look for them myself, don’t come to me.
  8. You follow me automatically just because of one interesting tweet from me although we basically don’t have any common interest.
  9. You set yourself to autofollow anyone based on certain terms that they tweeted.
  10. You’re not going to communicate with me. You should at least reply to one of my tweets in a manner like a human should do.
  11. You have no real tweets but only a repeated mentions (“@randomtweeps repeated-sentence-here”) to different random people.
  12. You have no real tweets but only retweets.
  13. You have no or almost no tweets at all, which means it doesn’t make sense if you follow me or anybody but you never tweet yourself.
  14. You’re not going to tweet much.
  15. You don’t tweet in English or you don’t know English. I hate English too but with English accepted as the international communication language, I’m expecting a follower who can communicate in English with me.

More to be added later.

(33/91 of my current followers in twitter are not worth following back)

Band Of Followers


It’s a fact that up to this time I managed to get my own “Band of Followers” by posting articles (or tweets or ‘status’) that may be unintentionally controversial and/or provocative to the mass, even if those people are mostly disagree with me, though they did not resorting to making me their enemy but instead having respect on me for being able to grab their attention on matters that they have interests in, or rather being able to see things in the opposite perspective of theirs of which they may or may not have thought/encountered anywhere else before.

God: To Believe or Not To Believe?


Below is the footage of a debate between my friends, DJTmetz and Kei_Angels, which was ongoing in twitter. I was a little late to witness the debate from the beginning or else I might got involved too. By the way I’m highly interested in this kind of subject. Since I believe this debate needs more public opinion about it so I decided to publish the footage here, unedited (including profanity, asterisk-masked characters and even typos – if any, except that I discarded #hashtags since they have no use here, and I joined two or more consequential tweets if they come from the same person, and I can never be too sure if they’re chronologically correct because I tried to place them based on replies but even that also may not in order as well due to the nature of twitter itself. I might also missed one or two things so please excuse me. I did my best already >_<). It may be started with political and racism but I think what matters is what subject it is mostly about, which in this case it’s mostly about God and religion. I got permission from both of them to publish it here and if you the readers have anything to say about it don’t hesitate to put your comments here.

Kei_Angels: Looks like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are holding a big Tea Party rally at the Lincoln Memorial. Haters gonna hate. I say we rename the GOP as the “Hater Party,” and call the Tea Party “Tinfoil Party” instead. Thy might as well have accurate names.

DJTmetz: Yep, because honoring what MLK Jr. stood for is totally raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist. 😛

Kei_Angels: Did you see that “avoid the black parts of DC” map the tea partier made?

DJTmetz: Again, the POINT of the tea parties has nothing to do with race; the restoring honor was about troops & religion.

Kei_Angels: And yet, the vast majority of the demonstrators were white. And then there’s this fiasco: http://ritsu.me/aHGw1c. America is better than Glenn Beck. For all of his celebrity, Mr. Beck is an ignorant, divisive, pathetic figure. http://j.mp/bCbHvc

DJTmetz: C’mon, you and I both know that’s utterly ridiculous.

Kei_Angels: Dr. Laura is fired for repeatedly calling one of her black callers a “n*gg*r.” Palin’s advice to her? “Don’t retreat — reload.” The evidence is there. You’ve seen the racist protest signs, anti-Mexican convention speeches, blatant abuse of the n-word… Threats to shoot the president, explicit and otherwise, as seen on various blogs and Newsvine. The burden of proof is overwhelming. I even met a TPer a few weeks back who was yelling at a Mexican store clerk. “I’m calling Arpaio to arrest you, fucking wetback!”

DJTmetz: Again, the Dr. Laura thing you can hardly call racist, from the article you linked me anyway. Stupid? yes. Racist? no. And again, there are crazies in every party and group — they hardly represent what the groups stand for.

Kei_Angels: The crazies are in control of the Tea Party. The keynote speech at the TP convention was an anti-mexican rant.

DJTmetz: If that’s the one you showed me before (where Tancredo was the speaker I thinkg?) then no, it wasn’t racist.

Kei_Angels: You are just refusing to acknowledge the evidence. You don’t WANT to believe that the Tea Party is racist, so you selectively ignore anything that conflicts with that viewpoint. It’s the same logic used to justify Creationism.

DJTmetz: Either way, the message of the Restoring Honor rally was entirely unobjectionable, to the point that even most lefties are lauding it, even if somewhat reluctantly (jealousy over the ability to attract that size of crowd, I’d wager).

Kei_Angels: It WAS objectionable. Haven’t we moved past all this God bullshit? I hate having it shoved down my throat. The last thing this country needs is a relapse into superstition. We’ve outgrown religion, and it’s just hurting us now.

DJTmetz: Couldn’t I justifiably ask you the same question? And suggest that it is you who are refusing to address actual issues?

Kei_Angels: Sorry, but when your side is hurling around the n-word, it’s your turn to be on the defensive.

DJTmetz: Excuse me? Shoved down your throat? He can’t MAKE you listen to his speech; that’d be why we separate religion from gov’t. Hey wait, I thought I was supposed to be the anti-religious one here. I am Christian, you know.

Kei_Angels: Really? Is that why Beck’s religion (Mormonism) helped pass a law in California that took away MY rights, and those of my peers? All because they wanted to legislate their morality? Force others to obey THEIR definition of marriage?

DJTmetz: That’s what people DO in a democratic gov’t. Everyone pushes for their beliefs about the way things should be; what makes us exceptional is that we can do it in a nonviolent way. They have as much a right to push a marriage amendment as the left has to repeal anti-sodomy laws.

Kei_Angels: It’s alright for you to infringe on MY rights, as long as it passes a popular vote? Glad to know you Christians are out to get me. What are you going to outlaw next, masturbation? God HATES that one. How about extramarital sex? Scientology? Better get going! Nice to know the nanny theocracy is choosing MY morality! It’s so nice to let God do all the thinking! I just obey his divine will!

DJTmetz: Riddle me this: you’re an atheist, right? How do you have “rights” that mustn’t be stepped on? *whew* You’re really getting yourself into a frantic raving loony mess here; I didn’t even state my opinion on such laws.

Kei_Angels: Simple. It’s called enlightened self interest. Humans are social animals. The happier individual humans are, the happier society is.

DJTmetz: …rather I pointed out that such laws were around and struck down, and the putting up or striking down of such things is completely arbitrary…and I’m thinking you’re gonna tell me to use twitlonger in a minute here huh? XD

Kei_Angels: It’s in everybody’s best interest to treat others with kindness and respect. It makes the individual happier, and society better. That’s because we evolved as social animals. We HAVE to help each other to survive. That’s how we’re coded.

DJTmetz: But even that’s arbitrary. You decided that happiness is great. That itself is a moral judgment Under your stipulations of nonuniversal morals, somebody else could just as easily decide that everyone should just die (nihilism), and you can’t really argue that your ideas are any better than theirs because it’s all arbitrary in the end.

Kei_Angels: People are free to be nihilistic as long as they don’t harm others. The good of society ALWAYS comes first. Base human instinct is survival. Our best hope for survival comes from supporting the social order that keeps us alive and healthy. A society that encourages free secular thought is more conducive to further scientific advancement, which helps humanity’s survival in the long run.

DJTmetz: But what is the “good” of society? Under your belief, happiness; under someone else’s, death. So you say, but history says science (and reason in general, really) is the child of Christian theology. In other words, there’s no reason to ask scientific questions or assume a reasonable world with regular physical laws w/o God.

Kei_Angels: Society should encourage humans to better themselves and those around them. Monetary gain and religion are distractions. Humans used religion to justify their deep-held instincts to preserve human life and exercise curiosity. Both curiosity and respect for life were around long before organized religion. That’s fact. Simply because scientific curiosity and respect for life contributed to our survival. That’s why we’re Earth’s apex predator.

DJTmetz: Yes, but science requires something more distinct — IE the understanding that there are universal laws of nature. But again, you’re not basing that on anything but your own opinion, which is purely arbitrary.

Kei_Angels: It’s not arbitrary. We know how evolution works. Natural selection chose humanity because of those traits. The ability to grasp abstract and philosophical concepts is an evolutionary adaptation that has served us well.

DJTmetz: Your opinion about what is “good” IS arbitrary…as are ALL morals, in your religion, anyway.

Kei_Angels: It’s not a religion. It’s based on hard evidence and the scientific process, not blind faith. I’m a naturalist. I always demand PROOF. Hard, repeatable, peer-reviewed evidence obtained via the scientific method. That is not faith. It’s fact.

DJTmetz: It still doesn’t make “to survive” anything more than an arbitrary moral value. Ah but the scientific method doesn’t work unless you’ve already accepted that there is a Nature to things…which isn’t rational unless you accept the idea of a designer.

Kei_Angels: Just because science hasn’t found an explanation doesn’t mean you can assume a supernatural cause. The sun isn’t a divine chariot. Nor must we accept a designer because we don’t fully understand the universe. The universe does not bow to our human conceits. We used God as a crutch to explain away the unexplainable. We don’t need that crutch anymore.

DJTmetz: I’m just saying it’s not reasonable to think there’s an Order to things without an Orderer.

Kei_Angels: Why? You’re assuming the universe obeys the laws of philosophy… that it must conform to your worldview of how things work. Order and Chaos are human conceits. They’re terms we created so we can begin to understand that which is beyond our understanding. Another product of our evolved sense of curiosity, to be sure. We’re always looking for an explanation.

DJTmetz: I’m just saying, the way science is now, God is pretty much an accepted axiom. If you don’t believe in God, there’s no reason to believe in science or the scientific method as a credible method of reasoning.

Kei_Angels: Sure there is. I don’t believe in God, and I believe science is credible. That’s because science has proven itself. God has not. Science gives repeatable results. God does not. Science is observable and falsifiable. God is not. I’ll bet you’ve done the same thing in your life. Taken a seemingly unexplainable event, some good fortune, and said “God did it.”

DJTmetz: But there’s no reason to believe that repeated results prove something indefinitely, if you haven’t already postulated that natural physical laws exist; There’s no reason to conduct such experiments in the first place, since the answer might as well be whimsical.

Kei_Angels: You have no PROOF that God did it, of course. It’s just nice to think he did. Makes life nice and orderly. You’re defining science by your own limited worldview. If it doesn’t make sense to you, it can’t make sense to anybody else either.

DJTmetz: Well then, even reason is capricious and relative, eh? I’m glad _I_ don’t believe that.

Kei_Angels: But people like me don’t NEED God to justify these things. We’re perfectly capable of justifying our morality and lives without him.

DJTmetz: It’s true that I count my blessings from the bottom up; and thank God for things like being able to go to College despite being the 5th child in my family…but I hardly see how that’s within the relevance of our conversation.

Kei_Angels: It’s relevant because of magical thinking. Something unexplained happens, you jump to God. That’s the fallacy in your reasoning. Admit it. You NEED God to justify yourself. He’s a mental crutch to explain away the inconveniences of reality.

DJTmetz: I didn’t ever jump to God in our earlier conversation to explain something I found inexplicable. Rather, I was trying to explain the axioms Science has and why it has them.

Kei_Angels: You can’t deal with the fact that reality is arbitrary. You jump straight to God to comfort yourself with the illusion of meaning.

DJTmetz: There, you said exactly what I’ve been trying to get across the whole time; under your belief system YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS! In other words, nothing’s sacred, and under a democratic system, whichever laws get the most votes should go, and you should stop complaining as if anybody’s rights mattered.

Kei_Angels: I don’t believe in democracy. I think humans are too stupid for it. I believe in providing the ILLUSION of democracy like we do now.

DJTmetz: And if you want a proof of God, since God is an axiom of science and science works, well, it seems reasonable to believe.

Kei_Angels: But you’re still defining my views by your own limited understanding. Just because you can’t justify my morals doesn’t mean I can’t.

DJTmetz: Ah, again with reason being relative and arbitrary. So if a = b and b = c, in your world it is reasonable to conclude a != c.

Kei_Angels: My worldview makes perfect logical sense, without the need for magical sky beings. It’s based on simple observations about humans.

DJTmetz: Uh huh. So far your perfect logical sense amounts to “shut up, you’re an idiot; it is because it is”.

Kei_Angels: Nope, you just like ignoring arguments you can’t deal with. That’s why you won’t admit the Tea Party is racist, among other things. Religion and conservatism in the modern age are both products of cognitive dissonance. Those beliefs don’t hold up to scrutiny.

DJTmetz: Maybe I’m alone in this, but it seems like the best way to describe “morals” is as a sense, like sight, sound, taste, etc. Of course…that idea rather assumes that morals are universal, or rather that there is a right and a wrong.

Kei_Angels: In the world of conservatism, calling a black person a n*gg*r is not racist

DJTmetz: Actually it is; but that’s not what the article you linked to me said Dr. Laura had done.

Kei_Angels: In the world of religion, believing in invisible beings is logical. They’re both based on self-deception.

DJTmetz: Well if you understand logic, (and I think you do, but you’re evading), you have to start somewhere, which means axioms. And I accept “there is a God” as an axiom to begin reasoning from.

Kei_Angels: But anyway… I’ve got a podcast to prepare for. Thanks for the rousing discussion!

DJTmetz: Alrighty, have fun; though I hate to have basically repeated the points I made in my blogpost 😛 And God Bless!

Kei_Angels: Oh, and while I’m gone, read this. It explains what I was trying to say far better than I can. http://ritsu.me/aqwPUw

The discussion ended there. I must say it is a healthy discussion and kudos to both person for being professional in handling it, ie. not getting carried away and not taking things too personally although it may be in contrast to what they believe, and most importantly they did not calling names on each other just because they’re disagreeing, and they remain being friends, which is a good example for all of us.

As for me, I’m siding with believing in God and religion. I may be biased because I’m a believer but believe me I don’t place my support by default merely because I believe in God, but rather because I still see God and religion “makes sense” to me, and I don’t see religion as restrictive as many atheists may think, and not as prohibitive as it may seem. My opinion is from what I’ve seen, atheists and anti-religion people are just those who are afraid or lacking the will to acknowledge the existence of God, mainly because of personal reputation, not because they have solid proof that God does not exist.

Most atheists (or humanists or whatever they call themselves) I’ve encountered so far always told me God does not exist simply because there is no scientific proof that he does exist. And they may continue believing it that way as long as they have enough words to defend themselves, although things may not necessarily true. However as far as I know the absence of proof is not the proof of absence and that’s what science taught me, as for why people continue believing the existence of intelligent life out there despite the lack of real evidence. The worst I’ve seen is many atheists put the blame on religion for the lack of freedom for things that may have nothing to do with them such as gay marriage, transsexual, etc., claiming themselves as the victim of religious oppression. I don’t understand why must they care and being particular about marriage when marriage is a religion thing to begin with. Yeah I may be wrong but what we believe is a personal thing to begin with so I’ll just let you readers to decide.

And as personally requested by both DJTmetz and Kei_Angels themselves, here are the links they’d like to voluntarily share with readers:

http://metzmeanderings.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-morals-axiomatic-or-can-we-reach.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_Atheism_FAQ_for_the_Newly_Deconverted

And you may also want to follow them on twitter too:

https://twitter.com/Kei_Angels

https://twitter.com/DJTmetz

Also sorry if my limited English is too hard for you to understand. Do tell me if there is stuff need to be fixed. Your help is very much appreciated.

How to make Twitter better?


After using twitter for quite a long time, now I think I have a few suggestions to make twitter better and hope the people behind it will get noticed and work something out of it.

I know many of you are annoyed of spam followers as much as I do. So now I think wouldn’t it be a good idea if twitter has some sorta stricter follow policy? For example, before people can follow anybody they must pass a CAPTCHA/re-CAPTCHA verification or something like that to prove that they’re human. Twitter may also give the user to set how they are going to be followed, either automatically, CAPTCHA/re-CAPTCHA or manual verification. This “manual verification” I’m talking about is like, the system gives a question to a follower, for example “Why do you want to follow this person?” and a user may approve/reject the follower depending on how s/he has answered the question.

I must say it doesn’t have to be CAPTCHA/re-CAPTCHA but any other spam prevention system that can do the similar job of eliminating spambots would be fine. That being said, the point is not about “stopping all bots” but rather stopping most of them, because stopping all is just impossible and out of logic here. I know it’s gonna be a hassle and time consuming but that’s what “being more stricter” is all about. Well, just additional clicks and/or a few more text to be typed in shouldn’t be too hard for most people because our goal here is to prevent the process of following people from being automated, hence eliminating spam followers greatly.

And also I found that it’s a little inconvenient to have only 2 privacy options; either to make your tweets public (follow-able) or protected (non follow-able). I think it’d be better if twitter includes another privacy option, “public tweets but non follow-able”, where people may still see your tweets but they can’t follow you in order to make your tweets appear in their private timeline.

It may be unnecessary for most people but once again the point here is to prevent random followers from following us. At least for me, by protecting both my profile and tweets, it won’t work for me if I don’t want bots to follow me but on the same time I wanted people to see my tweets. Unlock my tweets & profile and some random people/bots will automatically flood my follower list after they found matching keywords I might have tweeted. So that leave me with another option, lock my profile from being followed but at the same time make my tweets public for the world to see.

I don’t mind having to review all follow requests sent to me before I can approve them. At least, those who have sent those requests have seen my tweets and decided to follow me. It’s not the same as random people who send follow requests just because they are curious of what I’m tweeting about when they see my tweets are protected.

EDIT: I just thought of something. Let there be an option to flag tweets as public or private, where private tweets will only be available to followers. Also let there be options to block certain keywords/hashtags to prevent spam or unwanted tweets from flooding/entering one’s timeline.

Identifying Fake Followers on Twitter


Are you a twitter user who are sick of getting random followers each day? I know most people don’t mind being followed by strangers as log as they clearly have something in common a.k.a. having similar interests. However what one might be pissed off is not all of those random followers are real, most of them are fakes which deserve to be blocked straight away. Why? Because they’re annoying! Yes, there are services that allow you to analyze, identify and then eliminate those fake followers but these services are doing analysis based on criteria that  may or may not be disclosed to the user. So if you think you can’t rely to those services, how about doing the job yourself? Here is my guideline of identifying fake followers based on their behavior and their common characteristics.

Characteristics of fake followers:

  • use weird names. Sometimes they are not ‘pronounceable’, as if the name are randomly generated
  • use real people’s pictures as avatar although they’re might be in fact just a bot. Some others use logos or texts or any other images that are seemingly related to them as if they are the real people/organization behind it
  • use the default twitter avatar. Real people should have changed it immediately
  • most of their tweets containing links
  • repeated pattern in tweets, or sometimes the tweets seems like they are randomly generated
  • only containing RTs (re-tweets), either with the new style or the old RT style or both
  • only contain replies and less original tweets
  • only contain #FF or #FollowFriday
  • most tweets are from twitterfeed or similar services
  • following too many people, as if they are randomly following other people
  • following you based on the keywords in one of a few of your last tweets
  • have too many followers although in fact their followers are also bots like them
  • you can’t see them sharing similar interests with you in their tweets although their tweets seem real. This is what I call “irrelevant followers”
  • they follow you but they didn’t put you in their listings. The list feature are there for us to categorize people we follow so if they follow us based on certain interest they should have put us in certain category
  • never use the default web interface but only from clients (desktop/mobile). Real people should have used web interface at least in the earlier time right after registration or at least use it occasionally
  • never even use twitter client even once. Real people should have tweeted from clients sometimes because there are times they can’t browse the web but wanted to tweet something
  • never reply to your tweets/DM directed @them
  • never respond to your tweets. Real should have responded to at least one of your tweets for various purposes, such as to say they are agree or disagree, etc
  • never tweeted about current events/affairs or trending topics, as if they are living in their own world. Real people should have noticed what’s going on around them
  • contain too few tweets or no tweet at all. Even if they are real people my suggestion is to block them right away. They’re not worth following you
  • they just followed you today but their last tweets are ages ago. Worth blocking
  • have no means to contact/interact with you. Real people sometimes trying to convey to you that they are now following you, though this is not compulsory but if they are real people, you’ll be able to know their intention for following you, even if they didn’t managed to inform you
  • the most accurate: their tweets always contain something like “How to get more followers for free” or anything similar. Real people don’t care about getting more followers because what matters is getting real followers, not fake followers

Lets get rid of fake followers and teach those tweetbot creators the bad lesson they will remember to their grave. If there are enough people blocked them I’m sure those tweetbot creator will eventually give up. That’s why I’m telling you don’t support those tweetbot creators by not blocking them or bragging about how many followers you have. We really need to tech them a lesson. Don’t think about yourself only, think about other people too. The more you allow tweetbots following you, the more motivated those tweetbot creators will become and thus will affect other tweeps too. If you hate being annoyed then know that other people also feel the same thing too.

Did I missed anything?

Are you a twitter user who are sick of getting random

follwoers each day? I know most people don’t mind being

followed by strangers as log as they clearly have something

in common a.k.a. having similar interests. However what one

might be pissed off is not all of those random followers are

real, most of them are fakes which deserve to be blocked

straight away. Why? Because they’re annoying! Yes, there are

services that allow you to analyze, identify and then

eliminate those fake followers but these services are doing

analysis based on criteria that  may or may not be disclosed

to the user. So if you think you can’t rely to those

services, how about doing the job yourself? Here is my

guideline of identifying fake followers based on their

behavior and their common characteristics.

Characteristics of fake followers:

– use weird names. Sometimes they are not ‘pronouncable’, as

if the name are randomly generated
– use real people’s pictures as avatar although they’re

might be in fact just a bot. Some others use logos or texts

or any other images that are seemingly related to them as if

they are the real people/organization behind it
– use the default twitter avatar. Real people should have

changed it immediately
– most of their tweets containing links
– repeated patern in tweets, or sometimes the tweets seems

like they are randomly generated
– only containing RTs (re-tweets), either with the new style

or the old RT style or both
– only contain replies and less original tweets
– only contain #FF or #FollowFriday
– most tweets are from twitterfeed or similar services
– following too many people, as if they are randomly

following other people
– following you based on the keywords in one of a few of

your last tweets
– have too many followers although in fact their followers

are also bots like them
– you can’t see them sharing similar interests with you in

their tweets although their tweets seem real. This is what I

call “irrelevant followers”
– they follow you but they didn’t put you in their listings.

The list feature are there for us to categorize people we

follow so if they follow us based on certain inrterest they

should have put us in certain category
– never use the default web interface but only from clients

(desktop/mobile). Real people should have used web interface

at least in the earlier time right after registration or at

least use it occassionally
– never even use twitter client even once. Real people

should have tweeted from clients sometimes because there are

times they can’t browse the web but wanted to tweet

something
– never reply to your tweets/DM directed @them
– never respond to your tweets. Real should have responded

to at least one of your tweets for various purposes, such as

to say they are agree or disagree, etc
– never tweeted about current events/affairs or trending

topics, as if they are living in their own world. Real

people should have noticed what’s going on around them
– contain too few tweets or no tweet at all. Even if thye

are real people my suggestion is to block them right away.

They’re not worth following you
– they just followed you today but their last tweets are

ages ago. Worth blocking
– have no means to contact/interact with you. Real people

sometimes trying to convey to you that they are now

following you, though this is not compulsary but if they are

real people, you’ll be able to know their intention for

following you, even if they didn’t managed to inform you
– the most accurate: their tweets always contain something

like “How to get more followers for free” or anything

similar. Real people don’t care about getting more followers

because what matters is getting real followers, not fake

followers

lets get rid of fake followers and teach those tweetbot

creators the bad lesson they will remember to their grave.

If there are enough people blocked them I’m sure those

tweetbot creator will eventually give up. That’s why I’m

telling you don’t support those tweetbot creators by not

blocking them or bragging about how many followers you have.

We really need to tech them a lesson. Don’t think about

yourself only, think about other people too. The more you

allow tweetbots following you, the more motivated those

tweetbot creators will become and thus will affct other

tweeps too. If you hate being annoyed then know that other

people also feel the same thing too.