Dave Fleet wrote a response to a recent post by Robert Scoble about the ‘secret’ of Twitter. He said that Scoble is "dead wrong" about his theory that following more is better than getting followed more. I had to go back and read Scoble’s piece again, because I seemed to recall nodding my head as I read it the first time. Sure enough, I still agree with the essential point that Scoble was trying to make. Twitter is not, and should not be, a popularity contest where the winner is determined by the number of followers. That’s what Feedburner stats are for. So I don’t think Scoble is dead wrong on this one.

I hesitate to criticize Dave to strongly, though, for his assessment of Scoble’s theory. Dave knows his stuff and I’m convinced he’s not dead wrong either. The points Dave makes to support his criticism are excellent ones and I found myself nodding along with him as well.

How is it, then, that I can agree with two diametrically opposed opinions? When this happens, it usually means to me that I’m looking at a false dichotomy. An argument of extremes where the answer actually lies somewhere in the middle.

But maybe it doesn’t matter at all. Maybe we should be more focused on the quality of the conversation rather than the quantity of our audience. Maybe we should stop paying attention to those following/follower number entirely. The power of the ‘@’ will ensure that your audience will grow in proportion to the quality of your participation in the conversation cloud.

Twitter is the world’s largest pub. If you walk in with earplugs in and start talking to everyone – you will probably get hurt. On the other hand, if you try to sit at every table and never say a word, well, you’re probably just hurting yourself. The two extremes.

My advice? Walk in, order a beer, look for a few friends.  Introduce yourself to a few of their friends and let the conversation take its course. Most of all, just be yourself.

Share