It’s nice if someone has time to @reply my @reply, but for me that’s not the point. It’s just a way of sending a thought someone’s way, especially when I know they don’t follow me.

I’d argue that by following 20,000+ people you’re not *really* following anyone. You catch glimpses of what a lot of people are up to but you have to be missing a lot too — probably more than what you’re actually seeing, unless you’re spending your whole day reading Twitter updates.

I’ve stopped following some people (Scoble et al) on Twitter because my Twitter stream ended up like reading their IM session!

However, sometimes @replies to unknown or unfollowed users reveals new and interesting people to follow.

Here’s a feed of ryan’s tweets that aren’t replies – pretty neat!

Don’t stress over replying to everyone who @s you. With that example you gave, while it’s nice of you to reply, and it probably builds good will, it’s mostly unnecessary and will probably just continue the @s flying back and forth.

Another example, I think I sent you an @ with a product recommendation for a homeopathic teething medication for @jacksoncarson some time ago. No need to reply to that, unless you need further details. I’m not offended, twitter isn’t like IM — it isn’t always a two-way conversation.

You’re not that far off! Although it’s not just about your followers. It’s about the size of the social group in which the followers and those you follow are the same set of people. Have you read Malcom Gladwell’s Tipping point? In it he talks about what has been popularly known as Dunbar’s number. Dunbar is an anthropologist who posited that the maximum size of social group in which everyone involved could maintain a mental record of all of the interpersonal relationships was 150.

So you can up your number to 150 and you’ll still be fine ;)

Seriously, have you tried FriendFeed? You and others can reply directly from there and it can be viewed more like blog comments.

“This is the main thing that people are confused about, I’ve found. There are good reasons for this. For one, it didn’t use to work like this. (Since @replies were just normal tweets at one point, all your followers would see all of your, no matter who you were replying to.) Secondly, we don’t explain it very well (thus, the need for this post). And third, some people do have their setting at “all @ replies”—so they see all the replies people they’re following make, even if they’re not following the person being replied to. Many people I’ve talked to have this setting on and don’t realize what it actually does. (Usually, they just want to see @replies directed to them).”

I choose the latter option. It makes Twitter such a joy to use. I then have the “Replies” tab I can check each day to see if anyone sent me a message. Seems the perfect solution. If people get sick of seeing @messages, they can do the same.

I’m not sure this means you shouldn’t follow those who follow you, however. It’s relatively simple using most Twitter clients to keep up attentively with those individuals whose tweets interest you while just leaving the rest to stream by as you work elsewhere. I definitely enjoy Twitter more now that I’m following around 1,000 people – it’s like having a chat room full of interesting strangers open all the time, whenever I want to look in. Well, provided Twitter’s actually operational that day…

Actually, doesn’t Twitter by default only show @ replies from one user to another if both are in your contacts? So

Nope. It shows all tweets, regardless of who they’re @directed at.

If twitter is all about keeping up with friends and you aren’t on first name terms with your entire audience, then you can’t be expected to jump at every reply, even if etiquette might say otherwise.

I totally agree with your lack of @replies. It doesn’t keep the conversation meaningful for the 2999 other people who followed you because you bring expert insight and perspective to their Twitter streams, nor does it advance at least a part of what Twitter is about; expanding your horizons and learning new things… not just @reply thanks four times an hour.