I’ll say a thing or two in response:

1) An apology wouldn’t hurt, rather than to merely rationalize/explain/discount your actions. Leaves a bad aftertaste… once social trust is violated, EVEN in jest, it’s very hard to ever get it back.

Your point about “why didn’t anyone else think of this before” is completely besides the point, because yes, anyone can think of ways to game systems and violate social trust, which doesn’t mean that one should do so. Social context is after all built on social TRUST, and NOT social calculation/darwinism/”warfare”. Without initial trust, there is no social media, only firewalls, and the internet equivalent of “guns trained on you”.

It’s a bit like you threw a tear gas grenade into a crowded marketplace, and then say: “Haha, that was so easy, why didn’t anyone think of this before”.

And the resulting sense of “we were had by Bruce Wagner” may not soon be forgotten. Probably not what you had in mind.

2) Despite what you claim, RT counter lists are a useful aspect of Twitter, because it turns it into a great crowd-sourcing/trending tool. Some have claimed this function alone could overtake Google, at least for news/recency items “search”.

Whether or not it gets you followers is NOT the main point, and neither is it the main point of Twitter in my view: Since the social context makes it exceedingly tricky to sell anything to your 1st level followers/friends/etc., your reach lies in fact more in your connection to your 1st level, and whether they respond to you and/or might endorse something you put out there.

3) A further important point is that you are IMO drawing a false conclusion re: the number of followers you didn’t seem to gain from catapulting yourself onto the RT count lists, a so called “post hoc” fallacy: There are likely a number of factors that would go into anyone’s decision to follow you based on RT counts, among them at least: perceived quality of the information RT’d, which includes the perceived stature/credibility of the original sender.

Hate to break it to you, but you weren’t e.g. @Mashable quite yet. See, he has built up a consistent reputation for disseminating cutting edge news aboout Web 2.0, etc. (even though I don’t fully agree with his Twitter/SM strategy – he is missing the social/conversation component). That counts heavily in people’s decision to follow him (even though he doesn’t follow back), and further disseminate the information to their followers/friends, assuming that the information will be valuable nearly every time.

Which shows the ultimate flaw in your thinking about this: Rather than add value, which would/could have given people a reason to RT your stuff all of their own accord, you had to resort to a scammy “experiment”. Waste of your time and ours. If you were as smart as you are cunning, you would have left that one in the mental box for “thought experiment only”. Largely because you already knew/could have known the outcome. Oh well, maybe next time.

And this is the tragedy of all of this kind of “black hat” thinking/scheming: It is ultimately short-sighted, and intellectually lazy. As my friend @BenMack would say: “Think stronger.”

Follow me on Twitter, I follow back:
Twitter.com/AlexSchleber

Advertisements