Hmm (how about a “may I follow you” button – think of the credibility that might engender). 

I would like my advocates to be confined to people with some values.  It is not only the message, but the messenger that counts.

For the same reason I generally follow people who add opinion rather than simply retweeting it, that small investment imbues it with a certain credibility.  However there is sometimes value in the simple RT of messages that are of value precisely because  they are broadcast.  These are messages for humankind.  

A great example is this TED talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ktYbVwr90 -@drgrist:disqus by @drgrist  ( I hope you do not mind me illustrating but I would argue this is a message that serves us all while illustrating my point).

Finally I would note that a simple pattern recognition algorithm could very simply sift these behaviors.  It is perhaps the one twitter app that I might use, but because style wins over content and volume and repetition over message in the view o many marketeers – I am not aware of such a thing.- Back in the old days this was called quality assurance – and it assures.

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/update-return-of-the-twitter-quitters/

Moral – I don’t know who you are, what you stand for, your reputation, your product, your clients -what did you want to sell me again?

I’ll take 50 people who were drawn to me VS 50,000 that where not.

And the numbers, while grossly distorted, are not meaningless–they do say a lot about the account.

For the most part, I disagree with automation on social networks. Yes, it takes more time to build an engaged follower base, but it’s worth it.

People can tell when you’ve automated your Twitter account (just use a feed to your blog, auto-follow, sign up for a scammy follower pyramid scheme). This separates accounts with value from accounts that are just using social networking because they feel like they have to. Set it and forget it won’t work.

nmw