<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>social media marketing &#124; social marketing strategy from social marketing expert Wayne Clayton &#124; social marketing &#124; facebook &#124; twitter &#187; twitterspam</title>
	<atom:link href="http://socialmarketingexpert.org/tag/twitterspam/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://socialmarketingexpert.org</link>
	<description>social marketing, social marketing strategy, social media marketing, Web 2.0 and social media optimization using social marketing facebook, twitter</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 31 Oct 2010 16:46:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Are Twitterspammers Smarter Than Twitter?</title>
		<link>http://socialmarketingexpert.org/social-marketing/are-twitterspammer-smarter-than-twitter/</link>
		<comments>http://socialmarketingexpert.org/social-marketing/are-twitterspammer-smarter-than-twitter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:52:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>G. Wayne Clayton</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Mtkg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ReadWriteWeb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[socialmarketingexpert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitterspam]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://socialmarketingexpert.org/?p=679</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the most controversial practices widely used to build up influence on Twitter is now cause for account suspension - as all the TwitterSpammers yawn...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-692" title="twitterspam readwriteweb comment by socialmarketingexpert.org" src="http://socialmarketingexpert.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/twitterspam2.png" alt="twitterspam readwriteweb comment by socialmarketingexpert.org" width="595" height="275" /></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>I saw a new post on ReadWriteWeb.com on Twitters latest &#8220;changes&#8221; (if its really any true changes at all&#8230;) in the post entitled</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Dear Wanna-bes, Your Twitter Stardom is Coming to an End</strong></p>
<p>One of the most controversial practices widely used to build up influence on <a href="http://twitter.com/">Twitter</a> is now cause for account suspension, according to a message on the Twitter developers email list from a company support team member.</p>
<p>Using third party software to systematically add a large number of social connections each day, then break those connections with anyone who doesn&#8217;t reciprocate, is a method used by some number of Twitter users to create an appearance of legitimacy for subsequent new connections. Twitter&#8217;s <a href="http://twitter.com/dougw">Doug Williams</a> said last night that such practices will now risk account suspension. Some users will be unhappy about the policy, many others will probably applaud it. There are valid arguments on both sides of the position.</p>
<p>Read the entire article at  http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/dear_wanna-bes_your_twitter_stardom_is_coming_to_a.php#comment-143353</p></blockquote>
<p>My response:</p>
<blockquote><p>Twitter&#8230;why not set up that when you follow someone, you cannot unfollow them for a week. Wouldn&#8217;t that put a kink in the &#8220;effectiveness&#8221; of the Twitterspam?</p>
<p>Also while you&#8217;re at it, NO ONE can have more than 200 followers with less than 20 posts. Tired of seeing people following 2000 and having 1500 followers with 2-3 (or worse NO) posts. Unless you&#8217;re the Dalai Lama, no is is THAT interesting in 3 posts/updates.</p></blockquote>
<p>I find intersting one of the replies asking if maybe this whole response by Twitter wasnt a PR ploy&#8230; hmmm&#8230;  * naw.</p>
<table id="entries" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td id="entry_49231" class="text" colspan="2">
<div class="definition">* Naw &#8211; Laid-back demurral, with overtones of not taking the original statement too seriously.</div>
<div class="example">Statement: Hey, do you think Drew Carey is talented?<br />
Response: Naw, man. Naw.</div>
<div class="example">Courtesy of <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=naw">http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=naw</a></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsocialmarketingexpert.org%2Fsocial-marketing%2Fare-twitterspammer-smarter-than-twitter%2F&amp;linkname=Are%20Twitterspammers%20Smarter%20Than%20Twitter%3F"><img src="http://socialmarketingexpert.org/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Bookmark"/></a>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://socialmarketingexpert.org/social-marketing/are-twitterspammer-smarter-than-twitter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/


Served from: www.socialmarketingexpert.org @ 2012-02-10 14:33:18 -->
