I suppose what I’m saying is that the ratio is only a guide. When I get followed, I first check the ratio. If it’s low (few followers) then I’ll probably block them, but I do look at their posts first to try to assess whether what I have to say would be interesting to that person. If not, then they’re likely to get blocked, and that’s more often than not.

So, I’m <1.0 because I care about the quality of my followers.

http://www.twitter.com/ColinBowen, in case you’re interested.

But to repeat my thoughts:

Any type of ratio measure, except possibly the ratio of @ replies to show interactivity, is utterly pointless. Barack Obama would have a great score, but would offer far less interaction and value than someone following more than follow them – depending on who they are, what they do and how they do it. The only way to judge the quality of a person on Twitter is to experience what they have to offer and then decide.

Plus the occasional cull of deleted accounts by Twitter makes it utterly pointless. For instance, last night I would have been fairly influential according to the ratio, but now I wouldn’t – despite the same content, contacts etc, except for some banned accounts I should have screened more carefully.

In fact this actually punishes a close to 1:1 relationship of interaction, because any cull makes an account ‘non-influential’ apparently…

Someone like Barack Obama would have a huge ratio score, but would I get more from him than someone who has just joined and is following more people than are following them? I’d say probably, but it depends entirely on who they are, what they do, and how they do it. None of which comes from a ratio score.

Plus the ratios will be blown out of the water every time Twitter does a cull of banned and suspended accounts from follower totals.