If you’ve been on Twitter lately then you’ve definitely noticed the number of spammers that are starting to show up. It’s starting to look like my email inbox! So I went looking for a way to find out who’s a spammer and who’s not, because with just over 5,000 followers and following, and spammers getting smarter, it’s harder to tell.
So I went to Google, of course, and came up with a story on Mashable about TweetBlocker. Now this sounds interesting.
They take Twitter profiles and give them a grade based on how long the profile’s been around, the ratio of followers to following, and if they’ve been reported as spammers. Makes a great one-location to keep up with this stuff!
My score for my profile was A+, so I’m no spammer. I did notice that some of my real-life friends who aren’t spammers had low scores, despite being long-time twitter users. So it’s not 100%. Which is why they have grades from A – F.
It allows you to unfollow and block everyone based on their certain grade (or you can pick individuals), which I promptly did with everyone who was rated a D or an F. The C grades were hard to distinguish, so I left them as-is.
Tell me what you think and how it works for you! And what’s your spammer score?
admin
13 years ago
4 Comments → “What’s Your Twitter Spam Score?â€
1.
teasastips
7 months ago
Thanks William for your info. I started going through my followers and was pleased to discover that I didn’t have many ‘D’s and ‘F’s….
Reply
2.
Robert Evanoff
7 months ago
Hi William. I received an A+ on my rating. I couldn’t get it to scan my Twitter list. I’ll have to try again.
Thanks for the information.
Reply
3.
Alison Lee Cousland
4 months ago
Thanks William,
Was really pleased to see that all 4 of my Twitter Accounts had an A+ rating. Even one that has only been started a short time ago.
Reply
4.
aj
1 week ago
Hi William, I have a C rating, but don’t know why. I tried the Tweetblocker application, but it wouldn’t load my list of 22 followers either. I let it sit for an hour and tried it a few times throughout the week.
Reply