I received an email today that said I’m a “Twitter snob”. The reasoning behind it was that my follow-to-follower ratio was skewed – I had more followers than people I follow.
Therefore, I wasn’t using Twitter correctly; instead of following everyone back that followed me (which I should be doing, according to the email), I was obviously a snob that only followed the “elite” and I should “re-evaluate my Twitter use”.
The email ended by saying I shouldn’t advise on social media because I’m breaking a cardinal sin – which is, connect with everyone or don’t connect at all.
Okay….
So, I sat down and thought about it. Am I a Twitter snob? Should I follow everyone who follows me? Maybe. Maybe not. If snobbery is down to reciprocal numbers then, yes, I am a Twitter snob. But (and excuse my cussing), to me numbers on Twitter mean f**k all.
You can have 100,000 followers. But are they all live? Are they all human? Or are they a mix of humans, live accounts, dead accounts, spammers and bots? If they’re not all actual people that are active and engaging, then they don’t count. Unless you’re after false numbers, of course, to make you feel more important than you are. And there’s plenty of that going around…
So, fair enough. I have a skewed ratio. Which makes me a snob. But here’s the thing.
I’d rather be a snob with a skewed and (mostly) accurate ratio, than someone pretending to be something they’re not. Which, after all, is the real snobbery. No?
In his book 
About Danny
