I've been Twittering a lot lately. This Mashable post about types of Twitter users caused me to think about my own rules about deciding which Twitter users to follow.

If you follow more people than are following you, that is a strike.
If you rarely or never post updates, that is a strike. Sneak.
If you post a tweet every 5 seconds, that is a strike. Get a life.

If you follow fewer than 20 people, that is a strike. C'mon. You're not reading any of us?
If you follow more than 1,500 people, that is a strike. C'mon. You're not reading all of us.
If you don't follow me, that is a strike.
If you complain about people not following you back, that is a strike.
If you never reply to people, that is a strike.
If you only reply to people, that is a strike. Get a room.
If you auto-reply or send me a direct message when I follow you, I am not flattered, and that is a strike.
If you call yourself a social media guru, evangelist or consultant, that is a strike.
Linking and news tweets are great, if you are consistently among the first. If you are not, that is a strike.
Self-linking is great, unless it is all that you do, in which case it is a strike. (I don't mind Twitterfeeds if they are clearly presented as that under a company brand.)
Retweeting is great, but if that is all you do, that is a strike. Especially if you retweet someone that everybody already follows. And by everybody I mean me.
Original quips are great, unless they are boring or offensive. I decide. Strike!
I don't care what you are eating, drinking, watching, smoking, or what the weather is outside your window, or how your commute is going. OK, maybe once in a while. But it might be a strike.
If you don't use a real picture of your face, that is a strike.
If you don't tell me who you are or what you are about in your bio, that is a strike.
If we work together, or I already see your status updates on Facebook, I may not follow you because I already know what's on your mind.
If you are pretending to be a famous person, or a fictional character, or a building, or someone's pet, or an inanimate object, that is a strike, unless it is consistently funny.
If your tweets are all about Twitter and social media, or you compile lists about why you follow and don't follow people, that is a strike.

If you are interesting enough, I can forgive any number of strikes and follow you anyway. So what are you waiting for? Follow me @palafo.

I recently skimmed a galley proof of "What Would Google Do?" by Jeff Jarvis. The book, available from HarperCollins in January, is structured as a series of rules or aphorisms about how Google does business, with some anecdotes from Jarvis about things he has observed in his groundbreaking work as a blogger and media consultant. The book reads like an expanded version of a PowerPoint presentation on the conventional wisdom of Web 2.0. Transparency. Learning from your customers. Simplicity in design. Always being in beta. The importance of links and search engine optimization. The information wants to be free business model. The let-it-all-hang-out-in-public lifestyle of Twitter and Facebook and blogs. (Jarvis gave an overview of his thesis in the Guardian on Monday.) None of this will sound new to anyone paying attention to the Web in 2008. But for those who feel like the digital world is quickly leaving them behind, or who regard the new trends and tools with bafflement, Jarvis's book will be a good tutorial, even if some of the lines sound like Tom Peters-style excellence-speak ("Your worst customer is your best friend"), or call to mind burning Vietnamese villages ("we have to kill books to save them").

Jarvis offers a lot of Google-style advice for traditional media and other businesses facing a paradigm shift. His point in the section on books is that authors and publishers should turn their works into living texts online, as he promises to do with W.W.G.D. on his blog Buzzmachine. Smart plan. Books in this genre have a short shelf life, often measured in months not years.