I think this is something worth thinking about. What if following was anonymous, unless the person following has posts that have been shared by the person being followed? That way, if two users find that they like the other's posts, they can be made aware of the fact in the event that they'd like to follow each other? So, like if I chose to follow you, you wouldn't know until you'd shared something that I posted, or maybe a set number of things that I'd posted. Does that make any sense?
It's interesting, although I had to read it three times to understand it. :) I do worry that it might be too complex, and I expect that people would often be sending me PMs asking why they can see some of their followers, but not others. Also, I am not sure if it solves ecib's guilt problem, as it becomes most problematic when you have familiarity with the user you want to unfollow. This might only work to increase that familiarity, as my view-able follower list would be smaller than it would be now. They might feel more scrutiny.
Sorry! I think the GRE questions are messing with my ability to structure thoughts . . . I can see that. No need to implement one's own headache. I'm not really sure that there is a way around guilt, at least not via the structure of Hubski, since the user presumably understands the choice they are making by unfollowing someone, whatever the mechanism. One thing I've noticed in discussions about followers and following, is that people tend to mention that they follow some people for the content they post and some for their comments. Now, I'm sure that people use the follower/following system in different ways, but if there were some kind of distinction that a user could make privately, between those they follow for the sake of conversation or content, but still appear to be following those people, might that work toward sidestepping the guilt?I do worry that it might be too complex, and I expect that people would often be sending me PMs asking why they can see some of their followers, but not others.