You know how we say that the reputation on Hive means nothing, that it's just a number? Generally, I agree that doesn't measure reputation well, but it's still a metric of some sort, based on the author rewards you earned in time, but more complex than a simple addition.
I've seen enough people on Hive who don't value the number of followers one has either, arguing that many of them are already dead accounts.
While I agree with the argument that many of our followers are dead accounts, especially if we have been around for a long enough time, I don't think the number of followers isn't important.
What I don't really like is the word "follower" because it implies a relationship of subordination or manipulation or strong influence. I believe someone with critical thinking should be capable to take information from different sources without being a sheep.
I don't like the term 'fan' either, because you may read someone's work without being a fan.
Maybe better terms would be 'subscribe' and 'subscribers'. I know that is normally used in relation to communities or newsletters or something similar. But why not for following too? Technically, there is no difference. The only difference is of perception and of the mass phenomenon that is formed between the 'followings' and 'influencers'.
Will it be different if we call that 'subscribe' and 'subscribers'? Maybe not. Probably the mass phenomenon will continue as is, maybe even get worse. But personally, I'd rather call people who pushed the button to have my posts on their personal feed something else than followers. The term seems kind of demeaning, while the action often isn't.
For content creators, people who are interested in their work are very important. They are their closest audience, our critics as well as our fans, people who engage with us and maybe vote on our posts on a regular basis.
For every new viewer you get on a post besides people who see it in their personal feeds there are additional conditions that need to happen:
- you need to be in front of more people in various ways
- by building relationships
- by commenting on other posts
- by highlighting others or their relevant work in your posts or sharing their posts
- by linking in your current post other relevant posts you've made that fit well with the topic
- by promoting your post directly or indirectly, without spamming
- you may get lucky and receive a higher vote, or get manually curated on a front-end like Leofinance, which automatically brings more short-term exposure - obviously this is where the quality of the post may play a role
- your post may be shared by someone who reads it
But, as you can see, everything starts from your direct audience, people who expressed their desire to receive your content in their personal feeds.
That's why I celebrate reaching a round 1000 people who have done that over time and I am grateful for their confidence! Thank you!
Then it depends on what you can do to improve the reach of your best work, and then it depends on luck.
It took a long time for me to reach this number, and I am pretty proud of this accomplishment. I don't know how many of the people following my posts are still active (there was a tool to determine that ratio, but I don't think it still exists), but even the inactive ones at one point made the decision to push that button.
I don't want to wrap up before saying that we follow other people's content for different reasons. But one reason people do that for sure is if you provide the information they need or want, regularly, and despite the fluctuating rewards.