Is 1 follow per minute too fast?

[jacvzla]

From my experience, it's a considerable amount of time between each follow. I suggest you try to act as natural as possible with the different accounts you are going to follow: keep it random, but not TOO random. For example, if you're into comedy accounts, follow some of those and then go with food accounts. After that, try pet accounts, and then go with cars as well.

Twitter has been on top of bots for a while and you can get in trouble if you exceed that amount of follows or if you act like a machine is doing it.

 

[Deleted member 1414904]

it's not too fast

 

[RichardLI]

Hello Guys , What is your acceptance ratio on Twitter ?

 

[sohom]

it is not to fast, but that does not meant, you would follow non-stop for more than 1 hour.
Also make a random pause, not like 30 seconds or 60 seconds. It should be like 50 or 53 or 55 or 57 or 59,etc

 

[rootjazz]

Also make a random pause, not like 30 seconds or 60 seconds. It should be like 50 or 53 or 55 or 57 or 59,etc

Completely pointless. You think Twitter is just looking for tweets made every 60 seconds but ignores if you do a few of 57 / 59 / 63.

Looking for robotic like actions, they can take a point with 1-2 standard deviations either side and assume they are the same. If you want to randomise it, it needs to be random

20 seconds to 600 seconds to give a good differential.

 

[SERP Buster]

Not too fast, but unless untill you are doing it on continuous basis and if you're instagram account is new then keep it slow. Let it be look like natural or a human thing. Over doing anything would be dangerous.

 

[incription]

Its Very Slow

 

[sohom]

Completely pointless. You think Twitter is just looking for tweets made every 60 seconds but ignores if you do a few of 57 / 59 / 63.

Looking for robotic like actions, they can take a point with 1-2 standard deviations either side and assume they are the same. If you want to randomise it, it needs to be random

20 seconds to 600 seconds to give a good differential.

I did that, never had any detection problem. Not only with Twitter but also with Instagram
it is a random number between between 30 seconds to 90 seconds.
On weekday, daily 2 trips, 1 hour of each, on same time.
On Weekends, daily 4 trips , 1 hour each, on different time.

Since he asked for 60 seconds suggestion, I gave that example. I meant to say a number between 50 to 70 seconds. anyway!

And SD require more calculation, even if they does, what data suggest you, that their SD should not be more than 300 seconds?

So don't use word "pointless", unless you could have some practical experience or reference.

 

[rootjazz]

So don't use word "pointless", unless you could have some practical experience or reference.

I have more references than most having seen logs of 1000s of different users over the last 5+ years and running tests multiple times a week over those 5+ years. Varying your pause by 5 seconds is pointless. There is no benefit to it. 30 to 90 is better. 10-120 is better still.

Assuming you have a 10 hour working hours window. Pausing for 5 minutes will give you 120 items per day. Make that a 10 second to 300 (5minutes) with an average of 145 seconds you can now do 250 items a day, which should be more than enough for most people in 2020, with a big realistic pausing window.

But if you think there is a benefit gain by varying the times by 10 seconds (+-5) there really isn't. Better than nothing? maybe. But actually much benefit - no. If you just set your pause at 60, program speed / network speed issues will vary your posting probably the same +-5 anyway. Whether it is used as a detection metric aside, if the idea is to be real user realistic, no user waits 60 seconds or so between an action. They might blast through a few within 10 seconds, then wait 5 minutes so keeping those random min:max pauses as wide apart as possible is better

 

[Zvs1989]

It all depends on the quality and maintenance of the account, if you have a good account then there will be no problems!