At first blush, you’re story looks exactly like what a protypical “maven” story might look at – acquiring such a ratio by “accident”, having that many people follow you without a reciprocal follow-back, etc. Perhaps a maven that also happens to connect, rather than a connector that also happens to be a maven?

I’ve got about about 1/10 (@cheeky_geeky), purely accidental, and I think it’s because I’m a bit of a maven and people want to listen. But, I also spend a fair amount of time as a connector. Not as much as Brogan, no doubt. But where do you draw the line?

Thanks.

But can’t quite see what their criteria are. But I think the suggestions are a way for future comercial monetization – a thought Jason Calacanis had – so possible not quite pure.

Obviously with a deeper access of the relationships between people on Twitter it would be easier.

I was just thinking the same thing (see my latest response on the follow-up post). While I talked about it in terms of various @s in particular being used for different purposes, the ability to game key numbers is – as you point out – a serious problem.

I think this is particularly the case when you’re looking at follower / following numbers, which I originally started with but am getting away from. My hunch is that it will be easy to find 2 people that have similarly huge numbers for both, while one is a real “connector”, while the other just played the game well.

As you refer to, numbers that are less likely gamed – such as link clicks – could prove more fruitful.

You open up some serious thought… thanks for the mental exercise.