Right, wrong or indifferent, we all use the following and followers metrics to make quick judgements about a person’s reputation, and now, Twitter has provided another dimension, the listed metric.
This added dimension provides a much needed, albeit flawed, way to determine a user’s mojo. I use mojo here loosely to represent a user’s authority, something Twitter lacked in the past.
The number of followers or the ratio of following to followers were the only ways to get an idea of a person’s authority before, and these numbers could easily have been functions of popularity (ahem, celebrity), laziness or strict following rules (e.g. only following people met IRL), rather than authority or real reputation.
Listed allows you to size up how other Twitter users feel about a specific user, which adds some semblance of authority, i.e. being listed by lots of other users might be more meaningful than having lots of followers.
I’m using mojo here because the listed metric is still flawed for measuring authority. I suspect that lists will follow the same curve Twitter itself did; early adopters will use lists for reputation and authority, and everyone else will use them for other purposes, completely borking any reputation calculations.
Not that it matters, but I’m interested to see the evolution of the listed metric. Twitter’s inclusion of it on the user profile tells me it has some purpose related to reputation.
I created a “friend of appslab” list, including all people we’ve met over the years at conferences, here on the blog, at work, etc. It’s not complete by any means, and I’ll be adding to it.
I also added a nifty little widget to show tweets from the list right here (look to the right). The list widget is another new Twitter feature to support lists. For some odd reason, it’s not streaming any tweets behind our firewall. Not sure why, investigating.
Anyway, what do you think of lists? Does the listed metric help you apply reputation? Think it’s a fair way to do that?
Like the widget?
Find the comments.