Last year, someone asked me what my "Twitter strategy" was and I just burst into laughter for a full minute or two. I've got nothing.
Sure, that's why many scholars get on here -- my publisher basically forced me to join up -- but if that's all you do, no one will care. Your feed can't just be press releases.
My first year here was basically a lot of "On this day in history..." posts that pretty much read like a blog at the History Channel.
It was ... fine? But why would anyone care?
And so my tweets started to reflect that. They started to reflect me.
As you may have come to understand here, I've got a dry sense of humor and a real penchant for sarcasm. Once I started tweeting in my own voice, that finally came through.
And that means your replies and engagement on *other* people's tweets is probably as important than anything you tweet yourself, if not more so.
Get into the mentions and engage people.
They're looking to meet people who are experts on subjects they're addressing, especially if it's a new topic for them. They're smart, eager to hear from you, to learn about your work when it's relevant, etc.
But I butted into enough of their feeds to get to know them, and so they could get to know me too. And others through them.
As @KevinLevin noted, a key part of this is variety -- you need some serious scholarly work, but also some contemporary commentary and, yes, something that shows you're a human being.
I've heard from many people who followed my list of historians only to complain that a lot of them don't tweet much, or at all. You can't just have the mic, you have to use it.
I get that! But if you want a following here, well, you've got to give folks a reason to follow!
Dunk on Dinesh D'Souza. I mean, people really do NOT like that guy.
I went from 80K to 160K in two weeks just from a few threads on his nonsense.
Whatever you can do -- fact-checking idiots, providing context for the news, throwing the oddities from your research into the universe -- do it!