Alright, I will respond in depth:
I also don't think I'm brushing you off (part of it, I think, was that I didn't want to go too far into depth while we were in the other thread)--I'm just saying that I don't believe stuffing every tweet of yours with every hashtag related to the subject will help you out...because once you fill them too much, no one can read your tweets.
I never said to "plaster" hashtags all over your tweets, only use hashtags within reason. I explain later.
That may have all of the hashtags you want for it...but a) no one who's following you can read what you're trying to say without effort--and if it's on Twitter, there's a good chance no one's going to bother; they'll just move on to the next tweet in their news feed, and b) just because you have those hashtags there doesn't mean people are regularly searching for it.
That's not true. If that were true, I wouldn't have been seeing a spike of visits every time I do it. Every time I tweet the way I do, I see more than 20 users online at a moment (argue all you want that its bots, but some are actually viewing the site). If you want proof, I posted the stats for the site
here. That spike at the right side is basically banking on hashtags for Comic Con, and EVO2011. I even invaded SRK that weekend:
So, by the time that Ultimate Marvel Vs Capcom 3 is out, I have a feeling that my site will explode.
And there's still GamesCon in just a few days from now, and Tokyo Game Show in September.
After reading your replies, though, I have to ask...have you looked at my
@voiceradio Twitter account? You're telling me not to "just tweet," and not to "yell or throw something at them," and I believe that I'm
far from doing that with my approach.
You misunderstand me. That was a metaphor for trying to communicate with twitter users. The metaphor is that the birds aren't paying attention
to YOU
because you don't communicate with them by "yell or throw something at them." My point was that if you don't try to get their attention - they will just sit idly. Twitter is a real-time technology, that if one topic is trending - it's because the universe is twittering
out loud about a subject. Charlie Sheen's tweet was the most tweeted subject at one point. So smart business would be to add a hashtag to your post to be in the same timeline as that popular tweet. If you just do it like "Charlie Sheen," they can search your tweet, but it's not always "up there" in the trending now section. Most hashtags are in the trending now section, so yeah.
Twitter isn't really a search engine. Google is. Facebook isn't really a search engine as a first priority, but it IS a search engine embedded into a Social Media website.
If Twitter was a search engine, our tweet(s) would have been searchable at any time at any given moment. Instead, nope it isn't. Your tweets
DISAPPEAR from the timeline as time moves on! That's why you have to focus on the present moment to capture that market! Go to any website and find a twitter button, click on the number box - when the screen comes up: If that thread was a recent thread, it will appear. But if that thread is an old one, it's not there. It
is Twitter.
The way I write tweets for @voiceradio is to give a sneak peak of what's going on, then provide a link to the forum, similar to your tactic. However, we differ in that I don't have eight hashtags in that tweet, making it readable by the average Twitter user. Regardless of the hashtags' presence, people will read the tweet (in fact, I haven't researched it yet, but I think searching something, i.e. OnThisDay, yields the same results as adding the pound sign: #OnThisDay) and retweet if they want to (example: I posted a tweet about Mariah Carey being #1 x years ago today--someone who was looking for Mariah-related tweets came across it and RT'd it moments later, despite the lack of a hashtag). I think you said it best yourself: "If they like the topic you're tweeting, it won't matter how many hashtags you're using...
You're downplaying my tactics, when in fact people HAVE tweeted my posts before.
Here is one.
Here is a second one. [Warning: Offensive content enclosed - context clue can offend some people, others not]
So since that we're talking about tweets themselves, I'll go ahead and try to counter you here:
Are
@KathyBethTerry and
@MsRebeccaBlack "doing it all again" with a remix of "Last Friday Night?" Signs point to "yes:"
http://kwn.me/1ntj
The best thing you could have done here is adding hashtags to those two celebs' names, not @ signs. Your tweet is in the @ sign TIMELINE. Not the general timeline. Get it?
You're basically falling into the wrong area of Twitter. By this instance, you're actually losing traffic rather than gaining them.
In addition to writing what I believe are well-thought-out previews (and not all of my tweets are links to threads, as you'll see from reading the account's history), I strive to actually communicate with my followers; for example, I set up alerts for when my account, site name, or URL is mentioned, and follow up as necessary (example: someone "liked" a song and shared it to Twitter; I thanked them for listening).
All of this is circumstance.
Communicating with my followers is, in my opinion, the best way to convert those Twitter users into members of your site and loyal followers of your updates, both on Twitter and on your own turf.
Not all the time. Not everyone is going to register to your site if you "respond" to them like that. It's good what you're doing, but not everyone is going to do it.
Also, I'd be curious to know how high your bounce rate, # of pages viewed, etc. is on your site, considering neither of the two forums have over 100 members and there's not a lot of content on them (I'd check the blogs, but can't remember the URLs). My guess (though, with nothing to back that up, I could very well be wrong) is that a lot of your social media traffic is from bots who automatically crawl your link as it's posted on Twitter (generally about 20 per link posted, it seems).
Wow. You're a sad individual. Always using bots as an excuse to say that "your site isn't getting too many members because they're just bots" but my stats are telling me a whole different story - the visits and uniques are telling me actual
human is visiting the site.
I have a LOT of content on MVC3Forum.
My blog is getting more comments on the site thanks to my marketing. Go ahead check
MW3Blog. C'mon. Shoo shoo.
The only reason why MVC3Forum isn't getting too many members is because according to someone else, it's on xenForo. Nobody knows how to use xenForo - everyone's used to vBulletin.
Ultimately, I (and several successful, well-known social media marketers) believe that the goal of Twitter and other social media is to communicate with and build relationships with your followers. Cranking out a bunch of tweets only readable to those who are willing to do the work (and arguing with people in your tweets, which I saw yesterday on one of the two, by the way) does nothing to help build those connections or improve your account/brand's personal image.
Which argument are you talking about? And even then, I wouldn't want to bring those people over to my site, since they tried to take away my visitors from me. Those on MW3Blog "arguement," (if that's what you're referring to) are actually founders of a competing MW3 blog. Not too long afterwards, they tried to bribe me into merging my site into theirs. LMFAO.
They offered me some pay for content - which they offered lower than the price that I asked for. My content is full of quality. I didn't get at 20 thousand uniques without my skill.