Why are the numbers so moronic?

I was looking today at numbers - not just any old numbers but my Twitter accounts and my auto-generated newspapers. I'm coming to the conclusion that none of that rot actually works. As I said a few days ago, it's all very promising and I can see things. It just always feels that success is just beyond my fingertips - I can almost touch it but not quite.

Let's crunch some numbers fairly quickly. I have the following.

• Twitter Account 1 - Zero Followers. No Last interaction 27 Newsletter Readers No Subscribers Account type Environmental (started this 3 weeks ago as an experiment)
• Twitter Account 2 - 346 Followers. 3 weeks ago Last interaction 103 Newsletter Readers No Subscribers Account type Gender/Erotica (supposed to be a gender paper but the erotica keeps being picked up by the generator)
• Twitter Account 3 - 1977 Followers. 5 weeks ago Last interaction 14 Newsletter Readers No Subscribers Account type Photography
• Twitter Account 4 - 2972 Followers. 18 months ago Last interaction 11 Newsletter Readers No Subscribers Account type Photography
• Twitter Account 5 - 3806 Followers. 2 days ago Last interaction 24 Newsletter Readers No Subscribers Account type Photography
• Twitter Account 6 - 15 Followers. 3 days ago Last interaction 110 Newsletter Readers 2 Subscribers Account type Medical
• Twitter Account 7 - 33 Followers. 2 days ago Last interaction 85 & 77 Newsletter Readers No Subscribers Account type Personal

All of the accounts bar 1 and 9 have 20 automatic tweets sent out daily. Account 1 just has the newsletter tweeted daily. Account 9 is used solely as a personal account with the only automated tweets being announcements of the newsletters.

The large numbers of Twitter followers were generated a while back using an auto follower adder. I just tweeted to followers "Is there anybody HUMAN out there? All I see is BOTS" and did not receive a response. 

Clumping things together, I have 3 purely photography accounts with very little interaction yet a total of 8755 followers each receiving 20 tweets daily and creating only 49 newspaper views. There's something wrong there.

Accounts 1, 6 and 7 have never used follower adders. Those followers are genuine (or very clever bots). 

What's going on does not seem immediately obvious. It seems to be more of a mish-mash of possibilities rather than anything definite. Given that the newsletters have been running for over a month now and are published daily, it's quite likely that the following is true:

• The three photography accounts are just junk - junk followers and nobody really looking at them. No point in bothering with them further.
• The Environment paper running for 3 weeks has no real following and nobody really interested.
• The Medical and the Personal accounts have little to recommend them either.

It just seems that Twitter is like screaming into the Grand Canyon and hoping somebody at the other end is going to hear you. Clearly Twitter works for hugely popular public figures but for the ordinary Joe, trying to get people interested in their blog/website, it does not. 

Perhaps more interesting is the fact that nobody seems to have the slightest interest in photography. There's no attempt to sell photography. There's no attempt to sell any photographic or business services. Not a single one of the photography papers gets much in the way of readers. Perhaps it's more of the same of what I'm used to, namely that the internet just doesn't actually seem to work the way it's supposed to.