Oh dear, oh dear.
Last Friday I did a blogpost for The Lawyer on the difficulties of identifying the top legal tweeters. You can read it here.
It was not intended to be taken too seriously. It was a personal view by a single blogger. After a paragraph explaining why follower counts are not important, I mention nine tweeters with relatively high follower counts and show what a diverse bunch they are.
Nowhere did I say these were the top nine. That is why I did not tabulate them. It wasn't intended to be a chart of any kind.
And once I showed the diversity of the nine I selected, I moved on to other "top" tweeters with far lower follower counts, and gave up on the follower count criterion completely.
There was one glaring omission (my own account) which really should have implied to anyone with an interest in legal tweeting (and a sense of humour) that my selection of nine was not complete.
So altogether: it was not meant not to be taken too seriously, it was not scientific, and it did not purport to be comprehensive. It was - I thought - a playful and partly ironic post by someone with a high follower count trying to show why there really is no good way to rank legal tweeters.
And it certainly was not on "behalf of" The Lawyer.
At least one blogger has taken exception to my exercise - see here.
I am criticised in that post for things I did not do and did not intend to do.
Furthermore that post - wrongly - says my thing was on behalf of The Lawyer, instead of it just being a blogpost by a blogger. I am even criticised - by implication - for not placing myself on top of the (non-existent) table! (That I didn't should have been a hint that the post was not to be taken too seriously...)
So there we are - my response to a critical post.
But the fact remains: my post was merely a personal attempt to show why lists of tweeters by follower counts have limitations, even if they are revealing, and by missing my own account out I was hoping to show that it was not a terribly earnest exercise of any kind.
I am sorry to anyone who felt they should have been listed in my post (I understand some are upset), and please be assured I am hoping to write about more legal bloggers and tweeters soon.
And, oh dear.