[michaelgrafl]

I don't like being manipulated. Every time I see a "You should follow me on Twitter" kinda thing I make it a point to not follow the author, or maybe even unfollow them.

Holding your readership in higher regards than a meaningless metric can be worth a lot in the long run, too.

[ashray]

Manipulated ? He just said in other words - "Hey follow me on twitter if you want to stay updated". Is that manipulation according to you ?

I actually looked for the twitter button on his site so that I could follow him - since I did enjoy the post and would like to see more from him. Didn't feel manipulated though.

[Qualman]

I think the idea is that, if I like what he has to say, I'll just do it. He doesn't have to ask, and doing so _inside_ the post shifts the whole thing from inspirational anecdote, to well-written justification of why you should follow his Twitter.

[michaelgrafl]

I agree. It devalues the article because it becomes part of an agenda instead of standing on its own.

[michaelgrafl]

Fair enough.

The way he embedded the suggestion seemed contrived and inorganic to me. If some one puts a link to their Twitter account beneath a post, I know what to do if I want to follow them because of their output.

If I have confidence in my output I will trust my audience to find the right degree of involvement they want to have with me. No need to push it. Maybe I'm weird that way, but I think the OP knew exactly what he was doing, and stuff like that rubs me the wrong way because I find it undignified, harshly put.