
24% of Tweets Created by Bots - jasonlbaptiste
http://mashable.com/2009/08/06/twitter-bots/
======
jacquesm
Compared to email that's not such a big percentage, but if you take into
account how long twitter exists and how small it really still is the number is
pretty scary.

Maybe it should read 'already 24% of tweets created by bots'.

A bit of a trend would be useful information.

Would be interesting to have a breakdown on 'useful' bot tweets and 'spam' bot
tweets as well, the article suggests that there is a bit discrepancy but does
nothing to document how big.

~~~
derefr
I imagine relatively few of the bot tweets are actually spam—you have to
follow something to see it, and you can always just switch a spam-bot off.

------
skermes
Combined with <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=639266>, it seems like
Twitter is less about inviting millions of strangers into the minutiae of your
life than it seems from a naive view.

I seem to remember danah boyd talking about something to that effect at one
point; that a lot of the Twitter activity she'd observed among young people
was about talking amongst a small circle of friends. The only people really
broadcasting on Twitter are people who were already famous for something
besides their 140 character brilliance.

------
abalashov
And another 40% of tweets created by bot-like - although not technically bot -
human marketing droids.

------
kevinpet
I think this goes well with the whining story posted a couple months ago about
how the higher ups at twitter weren't using the service right, by which, they
weren't using the service as useless "social media expert" follower whores
want to use it.

One of the problems I've had to address in developing a social media analysis
product is figuring out whose tweets get read by humans, and which ones are
just followed by other bots. It's hard to approximate without access to lots
of data which isn't available over the API. On the other hand, it will be easy
for twitter to figure this out.

A few days ago, some users stopped showing up in search results. Are they
starting to tighten the noose around spammers? The beauty of twitter is that
I've already whitelisted those who I want to hear from. It can completely
eliminate the spam problem with email.

------
joshu
about 25% - 35% of posts on delicious were due to spammers/bots/crap as
well...

------
alexbosworth
Bots are allowed on Twitter - that's fine with me (@beijingair is a very cool
twitter bot)

But Twitter should make applications mark themselves as such to let tools
filter out auto tweets (imo twitterfeed should count as a bot)

------
dsil
I expect this number to be 95%+ at some point, because it's so much easier to
scale bots than humans, but that's not necessarily a bad thing at all. I have
3 twitter accounts, one personal and 2 bot-controlled, with one of the bots
having 10 times as many followers as my own. And deservedly so, he puts out a
lot more interesting content than I do.

A better metric would be something like tweets*followers, or some other way to
measure consumption of tweets instead of just production. Spam-bots will do
poorly on that metric, but useful bots should do fine.

------
extension
It doesn't matter how many tweets are spam, all that matters is how easy they
are to filter out. And the answer is, pretty damn easy.

What Twitter needs is a way to filter the drivel that comes from humans.

------
est
How many of those bots are RSS headline bots?

