My decisions were strictly intuitive.

However, I cannot say there have not already been moments similar to those described here where I have given pause to whether @mashable or @stephfierman or any other one I follow “deserves me” as follower if not following me exploits.

So, a solid take on this idea is a valuable way to keep the even keel, and as the masses become more masses become more masses, is an idea that — as Buck O’Neill might have said — “right on time.”

One other thought? The more limited one’s resources are in terms of time, or perhaps even money, or the more ambition one has, perhaps the ideas become all the more important? Give that person 10,000 great people to follow, and only one follower? There are perhaps infinitely better off than the other way around.

In addition, I am not certain this is not a visionary sentence that sums things up economically on a par with John Smith: “In the attention economy, a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that finite amount of attention over a rising level of noise.”

Very interesting.