(June 23) We’re working to reduce the amount of time it takes for new follower/followings to take effect. Right now, after you follow or unfollow someone it may take some time for that action to be properly recorded and propagated throughout the system. As a result, you may run into discrepancies such as:

* follower and following counts are off
* new followings not showing up in your timeline
* seeing that you can follow someone you’ve already followed

We’re planning several upgrades to address these issues and will post more as we make progress.

Update (3:03p): Other inconsistencies in addition to the above also exist:

* device notification changes for followers (choosing whose updates you get on your phone)
* favoriting and unfavoriting of individual tweets
Update (June 24)
The upgrades we performed earlier today were successful. This will allow us to catch up on the delayed following and follower actions that have caused a lot of inconsistency over the last several days.

We anticipate that this catch-up period will last for at least another 6-12 hours and during that time inconsistencies will persist. This means that if you follow someone right now or are followed by someone, the change will not take affect immediately. We’re hopeful that over the next several hours these issues will resolve.

Let´s hope this is not something that will happen often – keep on tweeting. Remember it is sweet to retweet!

Follow me @SmarterTwit

Last week, Facebook (@facebook) took a $200 million investment that valued the company at $10 billion. So if Facebook is worth $10 billion, how much is Twitter (@twitter) worth? After all, Twitter turned down $500 million from Facebook late last year, and founder Evan Williams might not even sell it for $1 billion. But how about for $1.7 billion?

That is the valuation we come up with when we run Twitter’s numbers through our new social network valuation model. The model takes into account the size of each social network’s audience in different countries and the average online spending per capita in those countries. Using Facebook’s $10 billion valuation as a baseline, Twitter would be the fourth most valuable social network after MySpace (@MySpace) ($6.5 billion) and Bebo ($1.8 billion).

Of course, that $10 billion valuation was for preferred shares, so $1.7 billion might be a valuation a strategic investor or acquirer would be willing to place on Twitter. If you use the $4 billion to $6 billion range Facebook’s common stock is being valued at in private sales, then Twitter’s valuation would come down to $671 million to $1 billion. And if you use Bebo’s 2008 valuation of $850 million as a benchmark instead, Twitter would be worth $781 million.

So there is your range: roughly $700 million to $1.7 billion. And remember, Twitter may still have scaling issues, but it doesn’t have all the costs that Facebook has in terms of storage and other capital expenditures. For one thing,Twitter isn’t keeping everyone’s photos on its servers—that is what TwitPic and Yfrog are for. On the flip side, there is also the question of revenues, which remains an open question for Twitter (and for Facebook, for that matter). Is Twitter going to make money from real-time search, corporate accounts, or maybe even figuring out a way to sell followers? Given how engaged a large portion of Twitter’s users are already and how it is becoming a hot testbed for opt-in marketing, it is not inconceivable that Twitter’s users will be worth more to advertisers than Facebook’s. But before we can find out, Twitter needs to pick a business model.

When news broke earlier that Twitter was working with some Hollywood types to develop a television series, the web nearly imploded on itself. Some assumed that the show would be about the people behind the scenes at Twitter, some thought they may have a chance to be on television because they use Twitter, some were outraged that Twitter would make a TV show rather than improving their own service, some thought it was Twitter openly endorsing the stalking of celebrities, most thought it was odd, to say the least. So Twitter co-founder Biz Stone weighed in to clarify a bit.

It’s simple really: Twitter has signed an agreement with a production company to allow them to develop a show based around the service. Stone was vague when it comes to specifics, but it reads like Twitter will have little if anything to do with the show, and really will just lend its name and likeness (perhaps even in the title). It’s similar to what the company has done in the past with Current (for Hack the Debate) and CNN (for its various shows that heavily use the service). And it’s similar to other projects that are in the works with a few other networks. But it’s still quite interesting for a few reasons.

First, from what Stone wrote, it sounds like Twitter hopes this will be the first of many shows built around the service. That’s interesting because it’s an extension of Twitter’s goal to be a powerful new platform. It already is one on the web, but that’s now expanding into different mediums, like television. And that’s notable because you don’t see many other startups — or even big web companies — make that jump.

While the service has seen extreme growth in recent months, Twitter is still nowhere near the size of something like Facebook in terms of users (200+ million versus maybe 30 some million). But services such as that, or even Google, aren’t dictating the content of shows the way Twitter is now doing. Sure, these other services pop up on television shows from time to time to make cameos — and yes, there is a movie about Facebook in the works — but Twitter is a springboard which shows are being built around. That’s a notable difference.

Second, one would assume that Twitter stands to benefit financially from such television deals. While it won’t be Twitter’s ultimate business-model, if a network were to pick up any Twitter show, the revenue split with Twitter would undoubtedly be more substantial than say, a partnership with a third-party website built on top of Twitter.

Third, this movement of Twitter into the entertainment sphere, does raise some interesting questions about Twitter versus TWiT (This Week In Tech), Leo Laporte’s popular video and podcasting network. This has been an issue in the past, but died down because ultimately TWiT and Twitter were in two different games. But if Twitter enters Laporte’s world, he may be moved to respond with his trademarks, as he noted yesterday.

“Twitter’s open approach might have the power to transform television—the dominant communications receiver worldwide,” Stone said of the news. That reads a bit arrogant, or at the very least presumptuous, and while it would be easy to immediately dismiss such a comment, it does speak to Twitter’s potential power as a platform. Because the service hasn’t yet bloated itself with the bells and whistles that other services have, and has stayed mostly true to its quick, mobile usage roots, it could be the one startup that is able to break out of the web service stigma. Yes, plenty of services have “mainstream” usage now, but those are still considered web properties that regular people just happen to use.

We may not like to admit it, but it’s still just not considered very cool to use any of these services rather than say, actually meeting up with a group of friends in person. But we’re moving to a world where not only will using these services move beyond seeming like something that geeks do, but where you don’t even think about the notion of a “web service” or being “offline.” An ascension of Twitter into entertainment could hasten that. I’m not saying that it will — hell, the Twitter show could absolutely suck — but I am saying that no one is developing television shows entirely around Facebook.

It brings me back to perhaps my favorite scene from the television show Mad Men. While setting up his presentation for Kodak’s new Carousel slide projector, Don Draper says, “Technology is a glittering lure. But there’s the rare occassion when the public can be engaged on a level beyond flash. If they have a sentimental bond with the product.” For an increasing number of us, Twitter is starting to fall into that category. Whether the larger public can be engaged in the same way, remains to be seen. For now, it remains a glittering lure.

Read more from MG Sigler (Follow him on Twitter @parislemon)

Written by Eyal Sela (@eyalsela)

I’ve just run into a tweet by infusecreative with an interesting Google Insights search. It shows that the number of searches for the term “Twitter” has stopped ascending. Since the beginning of 2009, the search for Twitter has been raising constantly. That was true up until March 22, when it plateaued. Has twitter reached its peak?

Google Insights results for “Twitter”

Update 04/20/2009: Twitter only had a peak (click the image above to see the current graph).

Popular Wisdom VS. Pagerank
Twoogle aims to make easier for people to explore the real-time web, powered by Twitter users and recent content from the most prominent sites, powered by Google algorithms.

Twoogle also provides the “Tweet this search” functionality, making it easy for users to post their queries to Twitter with just one click.

Twoogle is a free service, and is not responsible for the terms of service, privacy policies and practices of neither Twitter or Google. This service is provided without warranty of any kind.

Twoogle is a side project of Browsys, a company specialized in online information and search services; Twoogle can be find at http://twoogle.browsys.com

*NOTE: For an even more comprehensive real-time search tool, please visit: Browsys’ Realtimeness

Like this, follow us

If you’re signed up to get email when someone new follows you on Twitter, you’re probably used to seeing just the tiniest bit of information about them. With only a person’s name and Twitter URL, you’re forced to click through and change focus from your email to Twitter if you want to know more. Twimailer uses a neat workaround to replace Twitter’s new follower emails with its own better version. It generates a unique Twimailer email address that you then paste in as the address for your Twitter account.

New follower emails go through Twimailer, which adds the new follower’s latest few tweets, follower/followed count, Twitter bio, and a button to follow back. These replacement messages are both more visually appealing and more informative than the originals. Although you don’t have to give your password, your email from Twitter is routed through Twimailer. I have no reason not to trust them, but I turned off direct message emails anyway.

Follow us on Twitter @SmarterTwit

Do you hope it will…

1. introduce you to your future partner?

2. get you a new job?

3. bring new customers?

4. fill a gap in your social life?

5. inform you about new things?

Just why are you using Twitter, we want to know, lets get some good dialogue going and share your comment.

By Chris Crum – Sun, 04/26/2009 – 07:35

Attracting Thousands of Followers, But Following Few

You’ve no doubt been exposed to mass hoopla surrounding Twitter and celebrities starting Twitter accounts, racing to get the most followers, etc. There’s no question that celebrity Twitter use is good for expanding the social network’s user base, but what’s it doing to Twitter as a communication tool?

Is Twitter evolving or devolving as a result of celebrities taking it over? (Tell us what you think.)You have celebrities like Ashton Kutcher, Jimmy Fallon, and Oprah who have gained massive amounts of followers, but are not following too many people themselves. Is Twitter just part of their respective PR machines?

Are they actively engaging in conversations with their fans? Maybe a little, but how many of Kutcher’s million plus do you think are regularly getting responses from him when they send him tweets? Look at Oprah’s account. Granted, she’s only been on since Friday, but she’s already got nearly half a million followers and she’s only following ten people. So far she’s sent replies to Demi Moore, Shaq, Larry King, and Evan Williams. Hardly communicating with the fans I would say.

To be fair, I’m not saying that there aren’t celebrities using Twitter who do communicate with their fan bases. Perhaps even Oprah will if given enough time. Some celebrities (like Arnold Schwarzenegger, MC Hammer, and Britney Spears have thousands of followers themselves (though who knows how many fans were manually followed back and how many were simply added as a result of some auto follower).

I think Neville Hobson puts it well when he says Twitter is for listening. When Oprah joined Twitter, Twitter’s daily market share of Internet visits skyrocketed. Jason Miller discussed this at WebProNews.

Oprah has a lot of fans, and they flocked to Twitter because they are interested in listening to what she has to say. Twitter the company is certainly happy to have celebrities participating. But if Twitter was once about two-way communication, it seems to be more about one-way listening now.

Don’t get me wrong. Two-way communication is still an option, and there are still many people doing it, but some celebrities and marketers are changing the face of Twitter.

Luckily, there is still value in listening. Twitter has often been referred to as microblogging, and that’s really a good way to look at it. You read blogs because you’re interested in what the bloggers have to say. You read tweets for the same reason. They’re just smaller. Blogs have comment areas for two-way communication that can go two-way or one-way depending on whether or not the author takes the time to respond. The same applies to Twitter.

There is plenty of value in listening from the business perspective as well. Hobson writes:

Don’t think of the increasing user numbers we keep hearing about as just so much more noise you have to filter out if you’re on Twitter yourself. Remember, Twitter is an opt-in idea: you decide whether or not to open an account and then who to follow or not. You’re in control!

Instead, think of the stunning growth in people signing up to Twitter as more amazing listening opportunities to find out who’s saying what about you, your product, your brand, your client, or whatever it is that interests you in finding out what people are talking about online.

I can tell you that a good place to find people in your niche to listen to is our own Twellow. Just don’t go too crazy because Twitter has placed a limit on how many people you can follow in a day (1,000). If you’re really there to listen, this probably will not affect you too much. There is a bit of a debate going on about whether this limit is a good or a bad thing too.

Do you think celebrities are changing Twitter for the better or for the worse? We’d love to hear your opinions. Share them.

Many who were following @CNNBrk thought they following CNN itself. They had no idea that it was just some guy that had registered the @CNNBrk name, uploaded the CNN logo and then fed links to CNN content. CNN’s acquisition of @CNNBrk showed everyone us all username squatting on Twitter pays even though it is officially against the rules.  We can expect to see millions of people signing up using trademarked IP, hoping to cash in later. (Read our previous post: Can You Buy/Sell a Twitter Name). Follow us on Twitter, click here.

CNN didn’t disclose financial details, but they did say they had been working with previous owner James Cox (@imajes) on the account for more than two years. On April 15, he did tweet referring to his visit to Atlanta, where CNN is based.

According to @chartbeat when @SmarterTwit posted this article, here were the tallies of the rational behind this pursuit of followers:

WINNER 1,354,157

vs. 1,168,990 follow

Biz Stone (@biz) (Twitter founder) says, “Tara Hunt has an intuition for engaging community intensified by a unique ability to identify and communicate clear steps toward recreating that elusive magic. Tara’s work transforms consumers into participants in a way that makes products stronger and more meaningful.”

Click here to buy a copy!

Everyone knows about blogs and social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. And they’ve heard about someone who has used them to grow a huge customer base. Everyone wants to be hands-on, grass roots and interactive. But what does this mean? And more to the point, how do you do it?

As one who has actually launched a company using the power of online communities, and who now advises big and small companies, Tara Hunt is the perfect person to do this book.

The Whuffie Factor will traverse the landscape of Web 2.0 and show you how to become a player, it is not just another book about online marketing.

The Whuffie Factor is a breakthrough book, providing the strategic map and specific tactics for success in the lucrative, but strange and elusive world of online communities. As Tara Hunt has found, online success comes from building a community and being part of it – not by pushing a product or service. If you want to learn the secret sauce behind Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube, you have to use them until you love them.

Buy your copy today!