Three Ways Twitter Could (And Should) Improve The Suggested User List
Yesterday, my article about the measurable benefits of Twitter’s suggested user list (SUL) attracted quite a lot of attention, both within this blog and around the internet. This was furthered by some interesting comments from those I mentioned in my piece.
The thing is – it’s very easy to rag all over something as obviously bunk as Twitter’s SUL, without actually suggesting an alternative. Hence, and in the interests of balance, here are three ways I think that the suggested user list could be significantly improved.
Personalise
Twitter could radically improve the value of the SUL by personalising it to the new user. This would be best accomplished by asking questions about interests, hobbies, sport and club affiliations, employment, etc, during set-up, to build a richer profile in order to best match recommendations. The very basic 160-character ‘bio’ that we have now is pretty useless.
Twitter would scan your data, and recommend 20-50 users for the new user to follow to get started. This would not be pre-selected in any way. If you didn’t like the list, maybe you could click the button and Twitter would roll the dice again.
These more in-depth profiles would remain private and would only be analysed when looking for follower recommendations.
Optimise
Twitter could continue to use a pre-selected list of a few hundred suggested users, but instead of just giving you a random selection of these when you sign up, Twitter would tailor the list to your interests. This could be accomplished through the use of a richer profile set-up (as above), or by simply asking a few questions each time you require more suggested users to follow.
This works to Twitter’s benefit, as they can continue to hype the service by listing celebrities, brands and power-users, but it also benefits the end user as they’ll be recommended users they might actually have an interest in following.
Monetise
I mentioned this yesterday – Twitter could, and probably should, monetise the list. It cuts through all the BS. Lots of people think deals are being made anyway, so why not just go ahead and make those deals?
As I wrote in my article, there’s value being on the SUL even if a top spot was charged at one million dollars per annum. Assuming current growth rates are maintained, it seems probable that members of the SUL will be rewarded with about one million followers within about six months. For a brand, even at a million bucks that’s fantastic value for money.
Let’s use Microsoft as an example, who currently do not appear to have a clue how to use Twitter (no updates, no avatar, at least on their official account). Where else can they buy one million followers for one dollar per user, and then repeatedly hit those followers with relevant, commercialised content 24 hours a day, 365 days per year? Better, simply being on the SUL means tens of thousands of followers each and every week, which will easily replace all the null accounts they get from disinterested newbies and drop-outs, and the inevitable unfollows they will get from simply being Microsoft.
If Twitter played it safe and charged for impressions on the SUL – thereby opening the fruits of the system to everybody – they could make an absolute mint. Failing that, a flat-fee of $50K per month would still be excellent value for money for the right brand.
Conclusion
Of course, for any of these schemes to work, Twitter needs to wipe the slate clean with the suggested user list as it is now. Which I propose would be a good thing for everybody involved. It’s increasingly apparent that the majority of people who believe the SUL is good and/or harmless are those who are fortunate enough to be included.
It’s also fair to say that in some cases those who are most vocal about not being on the list have the most to gain should Twitter bring them aboard. But the reality is that everybody not involved loses simply because they’re at such a disadvantage.
Recommending accounts to follow to new users is a good thing, as it encourages newcomers to engage with the service. But a hand-picked list of celebrities, brands and friends of Twitter, Inc rarely leads to any engagement whatsoever, and the SUL likely has played a big part in Twitter’s drop-off rate in recent months simply because the interactions with nearly all of those listed are so completely one-sided. By scrapping the SUL and starting over, Twitter can significantly improve this feature, and go a long way to levelling the playing field.
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Loading ...
Although I completely agree that the list should be improved, I honestly hate being forced to build a profile during sign up. It puts too much pressure on me. LOL. I understand what is being accomplished by asking the right questions, but I get very frustrated when I have to answer 20 questions, and all I want to do is start using the service.
The monetize method is even a greater idea. Especially since Twitter does not seem to know how to make any money, despite having all of power to make millions at the moment. I guess the most interesting thing is that as much as we express ourselves about Twitter, we cannot let it go…
.-= Juscelino M. Acevedo´s last blog ..KidZui: The Internet For Kids =-.
It’s increasingly apparent that the majority of people who believe the SUL is good and/or harmless are those who are fortunate enough to be included.
That’s an absurd premise. Millions of people use Twitter. A couple dozen people are on the suggested users list. If a “majority” of Twitter users thought the list was bad and/or harmful, they would have raised so much hell that the company stopped offering it.
Most of the criticism of the list that I see is coming from a few high-volume complainers who are clearly motivated by envy, no matter how much they claim otherwise.
To me, the freak out over the list is just another sign that follower count is a poor metric. It would be better to know the number of followers who’ve taken action in regard to your tweets, by replying or retweeting.
There are hundreds of users on the SUL.
http://twitter.com/invitations/suggestions
There’s more than on the list you see above – some seem to pop in and pop out while others are always on there. Relatively, of course, it’s still a very, very minor section of the network – and that’s why it’s an issue, because of the advantage afforded to the few over the many. We can debate about exactly what that advantage entails (which we have elsewhere in this blog), but at a minimum it’s a massive increase in network size. Moreover, because the users in the SUL inevitably breach the top 100 list of all users on the network, their profile is raised accordingly.
The statement of mine that you quote is not the same as saying “Everybody not on the list thinks it is harmful and bad.” The reason why the SUL isn’t a huge deal is because most people are oblivious or don’t care. That isn’t the point – most people on any network are oblivious to the behind-the-scenes and technical stuff. It certainly isn’t “envy” on my part – I fully expect the people Twitter suggests to be well-known, mostly household names, and would never expect to make such a list myself (certainly now). But I also think the individuals on there should be relevant to *me*, or anybody else looking for recommendations on who to follow. I’ve found few on the list worth even the effort of following, and when I have, they’ve soon been dropped. Tila Tequila was on there, for God’s sake!
I don’t disagree with your closing paragraph – total followers is a poor metric – but it’s a common one on any social network, and it’s the advantages that a massive network gives anybody that is what really matters here. And the likes of @Oprah and @MarthaStewart neither need anybody’s help, nor are they ever going to be a good example of a user worth following.
I believe the suggested user list is harmless. I am not on the list. I think Twitter could do a better job making recommendations than the list — why can’t Twitter make personalized recommendations on who I should follow, like Amazon.Com does with books? — but I don’t see the harm in what they’re doing now. A bad recommendation feature is better than no recommendation feature.
P.s. I can’t tell what I’m accomplishing when I check or uncheck the box next to my weblog post title in your comment submission form.
I think no recommendation feature is better than a bad – and privileged one. I don’t think a bad *anything* is ever acceptable.
As you suggest, a recommendation feature based on the things I’m interested in would be fine, such as what Amazon does. However, if Amazon tailored their recommendations to just push the 100 or so books *they* wanted on you that had no connection to the things you’d searched for, then that would be comparable to what Twitter is doing now. And people would complain – why should those authors benefit over everybody else? What about *my* interests?
Even the top 100 most popular users would be a more democratic system than what we have now on Twitter (although not a good one).
If you check the box, your most recent blog post will be linked to at the bottom of your comment, assuming it’s compatible.