> that would force them to put all new users into an "unverified" bucket

But that's exactly how it is now.

I personally like the verified user option but I can understand how some wouldn't for reasons like the one you give. Frankly, I think Twitter's focus on growth is a big part of what got it into this problem in the first place. I'd rather see them focus on quality than growth and I think expanding the verified user program does that.

The measure-of-connectedness option is a little gentler and would probably fix a pretty big piece of the problem.

> I'd rather see them focus on quality than growth...

Quality of what? Discourse? Network connectedness? Ad-accuracy? (I'm nitpicking, but I'm curious what you mean.)

That's a good question. From my perspective as a user and fan of Twitter, I would say quality of discourse. That's a funny thing though because reading a tweet can be like trying to decipher a vanity license plate. Still, that's enough to communicate some pretty important stuff (like during the Arab Spring events a few years ago).

So the logical next question is how does Twitter shape how it is used? I think the answer to that is in part, let other people take care of that. In some ways, Twitter-the-platform is much more interesting that Twitter-the-product. My current favorite example is Nuzzle.

Unfortunately, Twitter is a $13 billion (and falling!) company. Investors think Twitter is Facebook Jr. and it really isn't.