/Message: The State Of The Twittersphere: Don't Look For A Bell Curve
JoeDuck
· 1 year ago
Excellent questions Stowe and agree that it's hard to even understand the appeal of Twitter until you are following a lot of people and also agree few are using this in tight little groups effectively - I think people may start with that and then realize it's not a very effective small group tool. I'd suggest the "optimal" follower number is fairly large to provide the Twitter user with the give and take that makes it interesting.
The stats alone probably won't tell the story - we'd need some survey data to find out how people view their experiences and then maybe associate that with their stats?
There are a lot of people with few members, but it takes a while to gain a lot of followers/followees. Since twitter is rapidly growing, doesn't that mean there are a lot of people in the "noob" phase? The system is transient, snapshots don't help much.
PaulAdams
· 1 year ago
I don't agree that Twitter users need over 100 following/followers for it to be compelling. Just as other communication tools are used in different ways, so I think it is with Twitter. I know that many people are following between 20-40 people and find the service useful. The question is not "how many", but "who". Who are the people you are following? Are they your best friends, or some folks you worked with 2 years ago? Different answers to this latter question result in different user scenarios.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
I wonder. I am constantly changing my twitter mix: adding new people, dropping others. I am not looking for perfection, or just people I am 'close' to. I want change for its own sake. It's an emergent property of the tool and the way I use it, not derived from any specific individual or group of people.
Chris Kenton
· 1 year ago
I agree. I think it's a variation on Metcalfe's law and simply indicates the early stage of evolution at which we find ourselves in social media. The true value of online social networking--the shared connections, insights and opportunities that grow as you connect--is dormant until you reach a critical mass. I actually think the behavior of indiscriminately adding new friends is a systemic mechanism for priming the pump. Online natural selection. It's much easier to prune your network for quality after you have a critical mass and determine the value of friends based on real contributions, rather than assumptions of value before a connection. I wrote more about this if you're interested.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
Metcalfe's law states that the value of the network is an exponential function of the number of 1:1 communication paths. Reed's law extends that to the number of groups formed. I think the real measure of value is tied to the number of networks we participate in -- not groups -- which is an even greater number. Re: critical mass -- I think you are right, that individuals -- or a network as a whole -- don't get real value until certain thresholds are passed. Like having 80% or more of an organization using IM religiously really changes the payback from IM use. But willingness to login and post presence is 'real value' and doesn't imp[ly anything about friendship or strength of connections.
Chris Kenton
· 1 year ago
Thanks for moving that a step further. I think you're on to something with "N". I need to let it percolate. Happy holidays, Stowe.
atul
· 1 year ago
Steve - Not sure if you have seen this. Data for 2.7 million users, 10 million tweets, and 58 million edges (i.e. connections between users) to satisfy your data hunger are available for download at link provided at http://groups.google.com/group/get-theinfo/brow...
stoweboyd
· 12 months ago
I am actually hungry for analysis, not data, per se.
rah33ls
· 11 months ago
I agree with your utility and threshold comments Steve -- and that people fail to recognize its full potential. there are 3 dimensions to the types of utility: direct, indirect and serendipity. the direct (too numerous to list) - similar to any communication platform and indirect (intangible, sense of belonging etc) can be formed low/good threshold -- as you indicate. however, the last one -- which people don't realize is the serendipity/filtering aspect (forget crowdsourcing and digg!!) -- this is the real step function in value!! Twitter's ability to manage attention is second to none (high return on attention).
however, there is one dimension that is being overlooked here. twitter is a highly contextual tool (primarily because it is so lightweight and flexible). meaning different things to different people. the tool takes into consideration specificity of intention and all the nuances of communication that go with it (presence, social distance and conversation, admire character, learning, friendship,hierarchy, intimacy). a very behavior, target, situation and time specific if it wants to be -- or not, if you don't want it to be.
all this makes twitter a remarkable tool. because of this -- is it a surprise that guy kawasaki can live a week without his cell, but not his twitter.
apols if was a bit dense and out there, but i hope it made sense.
ps just like the concept of 'search'. Twitter's utility is prone to behavior and attitudes, which will evolve over time. in internet time - not slow -- not facebook fast but surely to get there (just like the rise of google)
Beth Kanter
· 11 months ago
thanks for your thoughts here - so are you saying that people should follow more than 100?
I have to believe that the magic (or optimal) N count will be different for different types of users and that the amount of time you and your network of Twitter users want to or can invest in the service is atypical.
All Comments
The stats alone probably won't tell the story - we'd need some survey data to find out how people view their experiences and then maybe associate that with their stats?
however, the last one -- which people don't realize is the serendipity/filtering aspect (forget crowdsourcing and digg!!) -- this is the real step function in value!! Twitter's ability to manage attention is second to none (high return on attention).
however, there is one dimension that is being overlooked here. twitter is a highly contextual tool (primarily because it is so lightweight and flexible). meaning different things to different people. the tool takes into consideration specificity of intention and all the nuances of communication that go with it (presence, social distance and conversation, admire character, learning, friendship,hierarchy, intimacy). a very behavior, target, situation and time specific if it wants to be -- or not, if you don't want it to be.
all this makes twitter a remarkable tool. because of this -- is it a surprise that guy kawasaki can live a week without his cell, but not his twitter.
apols if was a bit dense and out there, but i hope it made sense.
ps just like the concept of 'search'. Twitter's utility is prone to behavior and attitudes, which will evolve over time. in internet time - not slow -- not facebook fast but surely to get there (just like the rise of google)
Here's an interesting take on following strategies
http://www.thenetworkthinker.com/2009/01/so-man...