It’s not the size of your connected network that counts, it’s how you interact with them. At least, I think it is…
Social media should be just that – social. Dunbar’s Number suggests that we can only maintain a maximum of 230 stable social relationships at any one time, yet many Twitter users (for example) maintain thousands of followers.
Assuming that each one Tweets once a day, that’s about one Tweet a minute. That’s one hell of a lot of information to take in and interact with.
In fact, according to Dunbar’s Number, impossible (at least in any meaningful way).
So, to be meaningful and stable, should we limit the number of people we follow or the number of blogs we read? By extension of Dunbar’s Number, this would give us the greatest opportunity to interact fully, because we’d be able to give the larger parts of our attention to each member of our community.
How would the social media sphere look if this was the case? And would it increase the level of meaningful interaction?
Would it simply limit information flow and spread?
And how would one decide who’s in and who’s out?
Or do we simply disregard the Number, follow and friend more and more, doing the best we can with a burgeoning social set in the full knowledge that we can’t keep up with all of them?
If anyone’s got the answers, or at least a theory, please share below – I would love to hear it!