<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Time For Verified Twitter Accounts &amp; An Easy Way To Do It</title>
	<atom:link href="http://daggle.com/time-for-verified-twitter-accounts-an-easy-way-to-do-it-436/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://daggle.com/time-for-verified-twitter-accounts-an-easy-way-to-do-it-436</link>
	<description>Danny Sullivan&#039;s Personal Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:09:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sharif Mohamed</title>
		<link>http://daggle.com/time-for-verified-twitter-accounts-an-easy-way-to-do-it-436/comment-page-1#comment-16466</link>
		<dc:creator>Sharif Mohamed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:58:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://daggle.com/wordpress/?p=436#comment-16466</guid>
		<description>Hi Danny, i am a Non-famous Web Celebrity who is from Maldives and currently been Awarded from Mashable and Also CES 2009. I am wondering is why does Twitter activation takes too long?? and why does they leave many peoples who are musician from Asia, Europe, Australia not verified.. I guess this is a big question for Twitter...

I have applied to twitter to verify my account.. but still no result... could you prefer me an option?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Danny, i am a Non-famous Web Celebrity who is from Maldives and currently been Awarded from Mashable and Also CES 2009. I am wondering is why does Twitter activation takes too long?? and why does they leave many peoples who are musician from Asia, Europe, Australia not verified.. I guess this is a big question for Twitter&#8230;</p>
<p>I have applied to twitter to verify my account.. but still no result&#8230; could you prefer me an option?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny Sullivan</title>
		<link>http://daggle.com/time-for-verified-twitter-accounts-an-easy-way-to-do-it-436/comment-page-1#comment-2098</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny Sullivan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:10:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://daggle.com/wordpress/?p=436#comment-2098</guid>
		<description>Casey, Twitter could easily know if a site is valid. As I said, this is what Google Webmaster Central already does. You sign-up for an account with Google. They give you a unique code. You put that on your web site. Google sees it, knows that you&#039;ve validated the code.

In the real world, Oprah opens a Twitter account. She puts the code on the Oprah web site. Twitter sees the code, marks Oprah&#039;s account as validated to her site.

Yes, someone could claim Oprah&#039;s name, but they can&#039;t get access to her own web site. As best, they&#039;d have to put together a fake Oprah site and validate to that -- as HLDeVore is talking about. But that also poses problems -- if Twitter gets a report that the blog is fake, pretty easy to then blacklist it from being part of the verification process in the future.

Nothing&#039;s perfect, but this is an easy way to accelerate the verification process. In addition, it fits into what Twitter is already advising -- that if a person doesn&#039;t have one of the new Twitter verification seals, then look to the person&#039;s site and see if they link back to their Twitter account.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Casey, Twitter could easily know if a site is valid. As I said, this is what Google Webmaster Central already does. You sign-up for an account with Google. They give you a unique code. You put that on your web site. Google sees it, knows that you&#8217;ve validated the code.</p>
<p>In the real world, Oprah opens a Twitter account. She puts the code on the Oprah web site. Twitter sees the code, marks Oprah&#8217;s account as validated to her site.</p>
<p>Yes, someone could claim Oprah&#8217;s name, but they can&#8217;t get access to her own web site. As best, they&#8217;d have to put together a fake Oprah site and validate to that &#8212; as HLDeVore is talking about. But that also poses problems &#8212; if Twitter gets a report that the blog is fake, pretty easy to then blacklist it from being part of the verification process in the future.</p>
<p>Nothing&#8217;s perfect, but this is an easy way to accelerate the verification process. In addition, it fits into what Twitter is already advising &#8212; that if a person doesn&#8217;t have one of the new Twitter verification seals, then look to the person&#8217;s site and see if they link back to their Twitter account.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HLDeVore</title>
		<link>http://daggle.com/time-for-verified-twitter-accounts-an-easy-way-to-do-it-436/comment-page-1#comment-1949</link>
		<dc:creator>HLDeVore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:38:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://daggle.com/wordpress/?p=436#comment-1949</guid>
		<description>Ditto to Casey&#039;s comment...  Danny you&#039;re smart enough to realize that someone who is going to extreme efforts to fake could easily setup a fake blog and then verify...so then a human would need to determine the blog is fake and then Twitter&#039;s scaling of an sort of automation is ruined because humans need to get involved...  Ultimately this simply shouldn&#039;t be Twitter&#039;s responsibility.  If someone drives in a Dodge pickup truck to commit a bank robbery does Dodge get sued for facilitating and allowing a bankrobber to rob banks?  Leave Twitter alone I say and let people chase away and sue the fakes!...Twitter does not need to be the identity cop...that would be ludicrous!  If I was a VC or knew a VC who had invested in Twitter (-; I&#039;d tell the VC that Twitter should charge a small fee for verification of accounts...say $10...even just one time ever!?  When the account verifies it must agree to legal terms that it DOES NOT impersonate or violate a trademark to the best of it&#039;s knowledge...they must also at that time provide name, address and billing info (which is not currently provided)...  THEN a notice to the Twitterverse could be sent that says...&quot;Look, we&#039;ve had a problem.  There are jerks out there that impersonate.  If you are following a celebrity or a corporation and they have NOT verified you should be a little bit more suspect that they may not be who they say they are...  We&#039;re not saying don&#039;t trust unverified accounts...we are saying though trust VERIFIED accounts have pledged that they legally ARE who they say they are...&quot;  Thanks TwitterGuys...  P.S. - Anybody want to enter the $100,000 competition for ideas for &quot;How to make Twitter money without pissing off the Twitterverse?&quot;...  (-:

My two cents for today/tonight....  Goodnight!  -H.L.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ditto to Casey&#8217;s comment&#8230;  Danny you&#8217;re smart enough to realize that someone who is going to extreme efforts to fake could easily setup a fake blog and then verify&#8230;so then a human would need to determine the blog is fake and then Twitter&#8217;s scaling of an sort of automation is ruined because humans need to get involved&#8230;  Ultimately this simply shouldn&#8217;t be Twitter&#8217;s responsibility.  If someone drives in a Dodge pickup truck to commit a bank robbery does Dodge get sued for facilitating and allowing a bankrobber to rob banks?  Leave Twitter alone I say and let people chase away and sue the fakes!&#8230;Twitter does not need to be the identity cop&#8230;that would be ludicrous!  If I was a VC or knew a VC who had invested in Twitter (-; I&#8217;d tell the VC that Twitter should charge a small fee for verification of accounts&#8230;say $10&#8230;even just one time ever!?  When the account verifies it must agree to legal terms that it DOES NOT impersonate or violate a trademark to the best of it&#8217;s knowledge&#8230;they must also at that time provide name, address and billing info (which is not currently provided)&#8230;  THEN a notice to the Twitterverse could be sent that says&#8230;&#8221;Look, we&#8217;ve had a problem.  There are jerks out there that impersonate.  If you are following a celebrity or a corporation and they have NOT verified you should be a little bit more suspect that they may not be who they say they are&#8230;  We&#8217;re not saying don&#8217;t trust unverified accounts&#8230;we are saying though trust VERIFIED accounts have pledged that they legally ARE who they say they are&#8230;&#8221;  Thanks TwitterGuys&#8230;  P.S. &#8211; Anybody want to enter the $100,000 competition for ideas for &#8220;How to make Twitter money without pissing off the Twitterverse?&#8221;&#8230;  (-:</p>
<p>My two cents for today/tonight&#8230;.  Goodnight!  -H.L.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Casey</title>
		<link>http://daggle.com/time-for-verified-twitter-accounts-an-easy-way-to-do-it-436/comment-page-1#comment-1818</link>
		<dc:creator>Casey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:21:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://daggle.com/wordpress/?p=436#comment-1818</guid>
		<description>(a year later) Good idea, but how would Twitter know if the web site linked is false?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(a year later) Good idea, but how would Twitter know if the web site linked is false?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bobsocks</title>
		<link>http://daggle.com/time-for-verified-twitter-accounts-an-easy-way-to-do-it-436/comment-page-1#comment-1564</link>
		<dc:creator>bobsocks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://daggle.com/wordpress/?p=436#comment-1564</guid>
		<description>Re Valebrity.  Looks like a good idea.  But there is considerable work to be done before I would put a lot of faith in it.  i.e. does not verify that twitter account is valid, contains bad hyperlinks, etc.  But worth watching to see if it gets better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re Valebrity.  Looks like a good idea.  But there is considerable work to be done before I would put a lot of faith in it.  i.e. does not verify that twitter account is valid, contains bad hyperlinks, etc.  But worth watching to see if it gets better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny Sullivan</title>
		<link>http://daggle.com/time-for-verified-twitter-accounts-an-easy-way-to-do-it-436/comment-page-1#comment-1254</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny Sullivan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 15:42:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://daggle.com/wordpress/?p=436#comment-1254</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/weblivz&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;@weblivz&lt;/a&gt; pointed out &lt;a href=&quot;http://valebrity.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Valebrity&lt;/a&gt; to me today, which tries to verify accounts in different ways, such as whether a person with a known site links back to their Twitter account.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://twitter.com/weblivz" rel="nofollow">@weblivz</a> pointed out <a href="http://valebrity.com/" rel="nofollow">Valebrity</a> to me today, which tries to verify accounts in different ways, such as whether a person with a known site links back to their Twitter account.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
