TwitBlock: Best Tool Yet for Fighting Twitter Spam

It was inevitable: as fast as Twitter became the fastest-growing social media outlet, it also became a primo target for Internet spammers. Most people I know on Twitter who use it regularly have said that they've noticed a sharp uptick in the amount, persistence, and outright obnoxious-ness of Twitter-spam in the past couple of months.

It used to be that most Twitter spam was generated by over-eager but (relatively) honest Internet marketers simply trying to build as large a following as possible as fast as they could by following as many people as they could, regardless of any possible real relationship with those people. The next and more annoying wave of such spam came as various robots and apps were developed that auto-followed people based on keywords they had tweeted. The latest wave has two characteristics: the pornographers/prostitutes have found Twitter, and auto-generated Twitter accounts (the ability to create dozens or even hundreds of accounts from which to launch spam attacks).

Twitter spam has reached a volume level where I've seen people quitting Twitter because of it. Until now, cleaning spammers out of your follower list was a laborious process, made horrible by the clunkiness of Twitter's following listings. But no more.

Twitblock (http://www.twitblock.org) to the rescue. TwitBlock uses a combination of several red-flag factors to evaluate any Twitter account for possible spamminess, assigning it a spam score. The higher the score, the more likely the account is a spammer. TwitBlock's simple interface gives you two key functions:

1. Right on the homepage, you can enter any individual Twitter account name to get its spam score. You can even enter your own, and then tweet your score (assuming you haven't been tagged as a spammer!)
   
2. To see the real power of TwitBlock, log in using your Twitter account. TwitBlock will scan all your followers and then display them by their spam score, worst offenders at the top.
   

You can block accounts you believe to be spam right from the TwitBlock listing with one click. TwitBlock wisely advises you to block carefully, and allows you to see the rationale behind their analysis before you decide. (TIP: right-click the analysis link and open it in a new tab or window; if you open it in the same and then go back, you have to wait for TwitBlock to rescan your list.)

A very nice feature of TwitBlock is that user blocks are figured in to the spam score. Thus you're blocking serves the whole TwitBlock community. To balance this, you can also mark any account as "not spam" (TwitBlock acknowledges that it is possible for an account to have a high spam score but not really be spam. For example, some automated Twitter services have very "bad" follow-follower ratios--because they don't need to follow back anyone--but provide a useful service.) TwitBlock claims that, so far, this system has not been "gamed," but promises they will be diligent in watching for that.

------------------------

For more social media, SEO, & Internet marketing tips, follow Virante on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/virante or join our Facebook page

The SEC Makes One Hell of a Bad Call

College sports' Southeastern Conference (SEC) has probably had to overrule a few bad calls by umpires in its day. This week it was forced to overrule one of its own calls.

The conference had actually proclaimed a ban on any and all social media postings about its games by fans at the games. This meant no posting about anything happening on the field to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, wherever. The main target was uploaded video, as the SEC feared endangering its lucrative television contracts with CBS and ESPN, which forbid the producing or disseminating of "any material or information about the event, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information.”

Not surprisingly, the conference is now strongly considering rescinding this ban (as reported by the Charlotte Observer), citing unfavorable media and social web attention.

This is yet another indication that although we are many years into the social web revolution, many established entities still don't get that the world has changed. Those who are winning now are organizations which have decided to join and encourage rather than attempt to ban. The simple truth is that you will be unable to stop people from talking about (and posting media from) your organization or events. What was not indicated in any of the articles I saw was how the SEC even thought it could enforce such a ludicrous policy.

By contrast, the Big 10 conference has an official social media policy that encourages fans to post from games. Social media is the true "information super-highway" of our day; it is where the buzz happens. You can't "beat it"; but if you try, it just might beat you into the ground. On the other hand, encouraging the flow is the ultimate leveraging of the old dictum "there is no such thing as bad publicity."

When Auto-Tweeting Fails

I'm a huge fan of the Tour de France; love to know what's happening over there as it's happening. Downside of "over there" though is that most of the happening happens while I'm at work "over here." So I was looking forward to this year's race, sure that Twitter would come to my rescue.

And it did. Sort of. Yes, the official Tour de France site did include a "live as-it-happens" Twitter feed this year (http://twitter.com/tdf_updates), and yes, to some extent that feed feeds my hunger, with "turn-by-turn" news from the peloton. But here's the fail: the tweets turn out to be auto-generated from the headlines of their real-time news on the actual site. Nothing wrong with that in itself; smart use of the technology. However, many of the most interesting headlines are teasers for mini-articles ("List of all crashed riders in 2nd stage"), but the tweeted version contains no link to the article.

This is fail on two levels:

1. The user (me) obviously misses out on the information, making the tweet useless.
2. The site loses the opportunity to draw me to their site. Huge miss for them; the tweet alone does nothing for their visitor count or advertising revnue; does nothing to draw me to their other content.

Moral: Auto-tweeting headlines from your blog or site is fine, but always include the link!

Twitter "Improves" Following/Follower UI by Making It Worse

When it comes to user interfaces (UI), the "U" should also stand for "useful." Flashy is no substitute.

When I heard yesterday that Twitter had "upgraded" the UI for both "Following" and "Follow" pages for users logged in at twitter.com, I assumed this would mean an improvement in usability and usefulness. 

At first glance, the new Following/Followers pages certainly look better, and seem to have added features:

1. You can choose between "Expanded" and "List" views. List give you just the Twitter ID and "actual" names, while Expanded adds location and the most recent tweet.
2. Two new buttons to the right of each follower: "Follow" and and options button with drop down choices to reply, direct message, follow, or block the follower.

So everything looks nicer now, but is it more useful?

No. In fact, it's less useful! Here are things we lose with the new interface:

1. Blocking a user now takes two clicks instead of one.
2. You can no longer easily see who is following you back (used to be indicated by a Direct Message link next to the name).
3. Seeing the most recent Tweet is nice, but would be more useful to see the user's bio. Now have to click through to their page to see that.

Thankfully, all these functions and more are handled (and handled well, in most cases) by third-party Twitter applications. The best I've run across for the functions mentioned above is Refollow.com. Please let me know of others you like in the comments.

Sadly, the new additions at Twitter.com do have one useful function: good teaching example of what happens when "new feature" means more flash but less usefulness.

Maybe You Should NOT Use Social Media for Your Marketing

A co-worker pulled me in on a phone consultation with a client yesterday. The client wanted to know if they should be on Twitter, and my associate told them I was our "Twitter guy." 

I only got one sentence into my pitch--"Successful marketing on Twitter works best with a commitment to interacting with your customers or prospects"--when the client interrupted: "Wait a minute! Interacting with customers? That will take time. Twitter ain't for us!"

I happily left the conversation. He was so right. If he had let me continue (he immediately changed the subject), I would have advised him not to waste his time with Twitter or any other social media.

See, though I'm a huge advocate for incorporating social media into one's overall Internet marketing plan, I recognize that it's not for everyone. Those still marketing with the mindset of throwing heaps of spaghetti at the wall in the hopes that some will stick (and with little concern if any of the spaghetti stays or returns after it sticks once) should stay away from Twitter and its cousins.

I'm getting enough spam on those channels as it is. I don't need to encourage any!

Social Media and Reputation Management

Are you an ace? I don't mean you've shot down boucoups enemy planes in some WW I video game. I'm coining a new usage of "ace": to have all the first page references from a Google search of your name be your own links--or links about you--and have them all be positive. I'm an ace most of the time, except for when a certain D. C. lawyer with the same unusual name as me gets in the news. Of course, if your name is "John Smith," you'd better be the most famous John Smith in the world, or you're out of luck. Acing Google's first page is a worthy goal for any company name, trademark, or brand identity as well.

The popularity of a number of social media sites has made them valuable real estate to claim if you are concerned about what people see when they search for your name online. This may be one of the most overlooked benefits of having a widespread social web presence. Most marketers just concentrate on the possible contacts/prospects to be gained. But the tremendous "Google juice" many social media sites have can result in high rankings for your name or brand.

Obviously, the first step is to claim a profile for your name/brand on as many social media sites as you can. A great one-stop tool to accomplish this is knowem.com. But just having a profile is not enough; you need to begin to regularly post content to these sites. After doing this for a while, you should begin to see many of these site filling in the first page of Google for your name or brand. For my name, my personal blog comes up #1, followed by FriendFeed, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn & Amazon. I also created a Google Profile, which shows up at the bottom of the first page for my name.

Three No-Brainers that Are No-Shows on Facebook Pages for Internet Marketing

As a Facebook user for several years now I've become pretty numb to the hysteria that greets each new major change of the user interface. I suppose all the "1,000,000 Strong Against the New Facebook" groups gave people a cause to live for for a while. I usually try to assume the best about a new interface on a major on a major application or site, believing that there is too much at stake for the developers to put a major screw-up out live. Sure, there will always be bumps and mistakes, but for the most part I see each of Facebook's upgrades as adding value to the site.

So I was pretty excited earlier this year when Facebook announced that its Pages feature was getting a similar major overhaul. First peeks at the new Pages interface did not disappoint. Pages now worked more like personal Facebook profiles, with the Wall feed front and center. Best of all, from a marketing standpoint, Wall content would now be pushed out automatically to all fans of the page, meaning it would appear on their newsfeeds as well, increasing the chance that new potential fans would see it. Brilliant!

Well...while sitting today having my mind numbed by a "Facebook for Business" webinar I'd signed up for*, listening to the presenter get all bubbly about the positives I'd mentioned above, I found myself thinking, "Yeah, but..." every few minutes. Here are some of the Yeah Buts I've discovered about Facebook Pages:

1. The templates are way too limiting, especially in the blanks for "info." For one client I signed up for a "non-profit/charity" page. The only contact info allowed in the form was a street address and web page URL. No email address?!? Is this 1982? Wait....1982 is too contemporary; there's no place to enter a telephone number.
2. While putting the Wall front and center was a good move, there is little else you can do to the front page, other than place some apps in the left sidebar. I blessed the day I found the Notices - FBML app so I could finally post a campaign ad for the organization next to the Wall where it might actually be seen. You should be able to place customized content on your front page without having to install a third-party app.
3. This I think might be the worst: There is no benefit to your page whatsoever if someone "shares" something you posted on your Wall. Facebook seriously needs its own version of the ReTweet for its Pages. As it stands, if someone shares something you posted, it appears on their wall as if they found it and posted it themselves.
4. UPDATE: Just thought of this one - Facebook is much more "closed in" than other social web sites (FriendFeed, for example). It doesn't encourage sharing outside its own network. How much is that a hurt to the usefulness of Pages for marketing?

Have those of you who have been using the new Pages for these past few months found any other no-brainers that are no-shows on your Pages?

*    *    *    *    *    *

For intelligent SEO/SEM: www.virante.com

*Aside rant: I want to shoot my brains out over how many social media webinars or presentations I've sat through where three-quarters of the time is spent on noobie basics. "Now, to sign up for your Facebook account, type your name where it says, 'Your Name:'" Just shoot me now. Post a link to a Facebook or Twitter or Whatever 101 page for the noobies and get to the announced topic!

BackTweets Finds Links to You on Twitter

If you're at all serious and savvy about using Twitter as a marketing tool, you probably do regular searches for mentions of your brand, using Twitter's own search tool or one of the many third party tools available. That's a good thing to do, but you've probably been missing a significant portion of Twitter refrences to your brand: those with a direct link to one of your sites but no mention of your brand in the text.

Enter BackTweets. Enter your base URL (e.g., http://www.yoursite.com) and BackTweets will find any link to that site posted on Twitter. Good news: BackTweets can "see through" shortened URLs. Any URL search you create with BackTweets has its own RSS feed so you can keep track of new linkers. To get that in your email, submit the RSS to FeedMyInbox.