If there were a comparison of Tweets/Month with Number of Followers, I might see it. I’d be more content if you and Ed had framed it in those terms from the getgo.

But Total Tweets Ever vs. Number of Followers Now was in my opinion a fried statistic from the getgo. Even when you introduced it, there was a considerable disparity in how long different people had been on Twitter. E.g., I joined early this year, and for seven straight weeks gathered around 100 followers per week. That’s a lot different from other people’s Twitterhistory …

Care to do a followup post now?

CAM

I wrote it up as I used it as an internal measure for myself, and felt if I exceeded 1/1 then maybe I wasn’t being interesting enough to my followers.

That happens many times, of course.

I was amused to see the same idea — which I disagree with anyway — to hit Techmeme twice, a few months apart, with no apparent connection between the two versions.

I don’t understand your point on Twitter Grader, however. The site describes its criteria as:

# The number of followers you have
# The power of this network of followers
# The pace of your updates
# The completeness of your profile
# …a few others

That sounds very different.

Mediaphyter http://blogs.zdnet.com/feeds/?p=208 quoted the company directly, and got a similar answer:

1. Number of followers
2. Number of followers that your followers have (the power of your network)
3. Quantity and pace of updates
4. Additional proprietary analysis (this is the super secret algorithmic stuff generator part)

Twitter Grader, which appears to have launched on Thursday, seems to be using similar metrics to determine user ratings.