50% of Tweets Consumed Come From .05% of Users
141
ajensen201102 writes "A mere 20,000 Twitter users steal almost half of the spotlight on Twitter, which now ropes in a billion tweets every week. That means only 0.05% of the social network's user base attracts attention, according to a new Yahoo Research study. From the article: 'Like findings in previous studies, the researchers for this one conclude Twitter resembles an information-sharing hub rather than a social network, with the top generators garnering huge follower tallies but not following their content consumers in return.'"
Which is what it's good for. (Score:3)
Twitter is such a shit social tool I actually started unfollowing all my friends; it's still great for following news feeds, though.
Re:Which is what it's good for. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter good for conversation? (Score:3)
That's one thing I can't understand about Twitter — how can you have a conversation with arbitrary people, and have others view that conversation, if only Tweets inside follow-cliques appear on a person's timeline? Do conversations instead happen on hashtag streams, or Is it expected that one should monitor the "mention" tab so you can talk with people you don't follow (even though people watching your timeline will only see your side of the conversation).
When it was getting of the ground, Twitter
Re: (Score:2)
Is it expected that one should monitor the "mention" tab so you can talk with people you don't follow (even though people watching your timeline will only see your side of the conversation).
Almost all Twitter clients notify you in some way that you've been "mentioned" (that is, your @username is in a message someone posted). You don't really watch someone's timeline. You follow them and watch their stream of broadcasted messages, which does not include messages beginning with "@[someone who isn't you]".
If you include "@kstrauser", in a message, I'll see it. If your message starts like "@kstrauser Hi from Slashdot!", none of your followers will see it unless they also follow me or unless they'r
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the explanation.
I didn't realise that putting @username at the start of a Tweet sent the username user an explicit notification. What's the etiquette about ignoring these, or turning them off? And is there any easy way for someone (who may or may not follow one of the two people) to view both sides of the conversation?
Re: (Score:2)
Any app that uses the statuses/mentions [twitter.com] API call (which is every app I've ever seen) will receive a list of every message that contains the string "@username" somewhere in it. The Twitter version of "reply all" is to write message like "@user1 @user2 Hi, guys!". In fact, that's what every app I've seen does when you hit "reply all": it starts a new message containing every username that was in the message you're replying to (minus your own).
The etiquette for mentions is the same as email: reply to anything
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and I should mention that "@" only hides messages from "uninterested" parties when it's the first character in a message. If you write something like "I follow @slashdot on Twitter.", then all of your followers will see the message. If you write "@slashdot I follow you on twitter.", then no one will see it unless they also follow @slashdot or they've navigated to your profile and they're reading your entire public timeline.
Putting "@username" in the middle of a message is kind of the idiom for open mess
Re: (Score:2)
That's one thing I can't understand about Twitter — how can you have a conversation with arbitrary people, and have others view that conversation, if only Tweets inside follow-cliques appear on a person's timeline? Do conversations instead happen on hashtag streams, or Is it expected that one should monitor the "mention" tab so you can talk with people you don't follow (even though people watching your timeline will only see your side of the conversation).
I think you hit the nail on the head on why most slashdotters hate Twitter. It doesn't make sense from an objective point of view. Yet most people like it and want to use it. I think the fundamental lesson is that people *want* to use the best of what is available to them that they understand, and that they think other people are using, whether it really is the best tool for the job.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
I've tried to see the point in Twitter, but apart from making it easier to have group conversations by SMS I really can't work out what it is supposed to achieve.
To illustrate: I went to a convention a couple of weeks ago and started following quite a few interesting people. They didn't have to do anything to push their comments to me, so it that sense it's like they all run their own mailing lists or RSS feeds. Some of their comments led to conversations, and at that point the analogy stops.
The only other people who see those conversations are Twitter users who follow both that person and me. That is, the people who follow me for other reasons aren't dragged into c
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is basically a promotional tool. If you are a celebrity, even a minor one, or have business or something else that needs to be promoted, you get a twitter account and do your promotions there. Fans and people interested in what you are doing subscribe and listen in. Lots of people have it set up as SMS so it is essentially instantaneous ma
Re: (Score:3)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't "get" Twitter. Every time I poke around on twitter.com, I'm appalled by the pathetic levels of narcissism and celebrity following. The site has some okay potential for information dispersion, as you say; but the main way I see it used reminds me of how pathetic our culture really is.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm appalled by the pathetic levels of narcissism and celebrity following.
So don't follow celebrities.
I felt exactly the same way as you 2 years ago. Recently I tried it again, and found it unbelievably informative. I don't follow celebrities, and I've stopped following the higher-profile geeks, whose feeds inevitably turn to narcissism. But I've picked up great things from local political activists (including those I disagree with), local businesses who offer discounts to their followers and other info, and people working in my industry who want to point out interesting articl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I follow my friends, but I only have about five so it's not too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is such a shit social tool I actually started unfollowing all my friends; it's still great for following news feeds, though.
Don't use it as a tool to discuss all your thoughts for all the world to read. That's what a Journal is for and if you haven't figured out that rambling publicly wouldn't be any better than reliving high school then you really are a slow learner. Treat is as a tool for connecting yourself with various industries, news, ideas and more that can be a means to new interests, added skills, etc. You either learn to discern between value and gossip or you don't. Blaming a tool for your shortcomings is like blaming
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Which is what it's good for. (Score:4, Insightful)
Twitter is such a shit social tool I actually started unfollowing all my friends; it's still great for following news feeds, though.
No, it's fucking not. I only use Twitter because certain Android devs think there's no other way to post news... but there's something about only reading 140 chars (or was it 150?) before having to click through to see WTF the topic of the tweet actually was that seriously pisses me off.
SMS is the root of all evil, and it's ruined a perfectly good service. A centralized alternative to RSS (which is all Twitter really is) would've been great... although tbh: Google Reader's interface kicks Twitter's ass anyway.
Why are we using this crap again?
Re: (Score:2)
Google Reader's interface kicks Twitter's ass anyway.
My version of Google Reader doesn't have a "reply" button.
Re: (Score:2)
And why would you reply to a news feed? Nobody wants to hear what you (or I) have to say, unless the article is on a site like Slashdot - and sites like Slashdot have their own commenting system...
Re: (Score:2)
You said Twitter is like a centralized RSS systems, but it's not. I can reply to people I'm following on Twitter, and I've gotten responses from all sorts of people from local reporters to famous authors.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm the same way. I joined Twitter about a year and some ago, because I was moving 3 hours away and thought it would be a good way to keep in touch. I immediately followed about 20 in-real-life friends. And almost as quickly, I unfollowed most of them.
There are 2 main issues I have with these people:
1. They thought it was cool to connect their Twitter feed to Facebook. So now I see exactly the same thing on Facebook as Twitter whenever they update their status.
2. They post completely random shit, all the fu
Re: (Score:2)
Best of what worlds? A service I don't use and another I have a better one for?
Re: (Score:2)
Odd.
They're not usually self-aware enough to call themselves something like "r. stallman".
Incompetent shill is troll shill?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you see? RMS was right! The FSF has been replaced by replicants!
Re: (Score:2)
Bing News recently added a real-time twitter update. It's a great way to get the best of both worlds on one conveninent page.
You mean Bing, the search engine whose ads brag that using it doesn't give you all the information you could otherwise get?
True from my experience. (Score:1)
The only thing I use Twitter for is for hearing about updates to Minecraft and when the occasional celebrity/corporate scandal breaks out because of a "tweet". Considering I see Twitter mentioned nearly every where I have to wonder how much they are spending to generate such a large buzz for such a prosaic service.
Twitter stopped being relevant technologically when "everyone" got smart phones which enabled them to do updates bigger than a SMS while away from their computers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this modded Flamebait?
Re: (Score:2)
The popularity and primitive graphics should be a dead giveaway that it's got nothing to do with the graphics.
It is an open world you live in by yourself, with no rules except the world's physics - no quests, no goals, no achievements, nothing. There is a fairly extensive crafting system based on a simple interface that supports relatively complex behavior, so you can make just about anything you like, from a torch to a house. There is a day/night cycle, and anyplace it is dark monsters can spawn and kill
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I can at least understand the appeal of an open ended world. I had no idea about the monster aspect.
Just another proof of Sturgeon's Law (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I think he was being generous.
Same with Email (Score:3)
Large amount of traffic from small amount of users, and a large majority of those are spam.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, you're just not thinking recursively enough -- the 10% that isn't crap is still 90% crap.
Re: (Score:2)
WELL! (Score:2)
Please see below and other things to do with pot and kettle ethnicity.
Re:WELL! (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of people (like me) also join and then never use it because they really just don't "get" it. I can already do something similar but more fun on Facebook.
In other words... (Score:2)
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, that should read as 0.05% of Twitter users are big celebrities.
Re: (Score:2)
Add to that, there's the status symbol of the "Twitter Ratio." Pretty much it's #of followers/#people you follow.
The higher the result, the more awesomer you are.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's all that much of a status symbol, really. Either you're a real life somebody with a lot of followers, or you're an internet nobody with a lot of followers. Tweet a lot, be helpful and engage in discussions, and you'll gain followers, but I don't think being big on Twitter gives all that much status, even on Twitter.
But sure, the whole social networking concept does appeal to vanity to a sickening degree.
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, that should read as 0.05% of Twitter users are big celebrities.
You misspelled "narcissists".
Re: (Score:3)
Only 0.05%? Now, that would be news.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, celebrities, news sites, and spammers.
My news site has a twitter feed. I could care less about it, other than a handful of people were bugging me to do it. So we put up somewhere around 20 messages a day. That probably puts me into that 0.05%, which really wouldn't be right. That's sad, when you realize that 0.05% is the fluffed up number. Round it off, and you see how much people use it. 0%.
Once in a while I go through and delete all the damned spammers who dec
Re: (Score:2)
Your news site? Would that be Free Internet Press, followed by a whopping 109 people? No, sir, that doesn't put you anywhere near the 0.05%. Millions of people use Twitter, your site just doesn't have much presence there.
Re: (Score:2)
It's up to 109? Interesting. So we're well past the "double" point now. :)
I wasn't saying by myself I account for anything resembling a substantial portion of that, but my site, and likely over 100,000 like it it do [thefuturebuzz.com]. I believe for most of the blogging softwares out there, they have plugins/addons that will do it for you, no coding required.
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Funny)
In other words "99.95% of twitterers are twits."
Sounds about right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"In other words "99.95% of twitterers are twits."
Hardly. At least half of them are twats,
Re: (Score:2)
David Cameron, is that you?
Re: (Score:1)
Should we be surprised? (Score:1)
Foreword: I am not taking part in any social network (well, if you exclude LinkedIn but I am a completely passive user also in that case).
From the outside, social networking is about showing off connections and getting the illusion of being in touch with people that, in the real world, wouldn't give a damn of you. All those people telling you their private business, they would never talk with you if they had to call you on the phone or send you an email.
On the other hand, they are still cool for getting in
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure most of my Facebook friends are people I would never bother to talk to otherwise, but occasionally there is something worth "liking" or chiming in on. Also, it is great for organising stuff with everyday friends, or getting to know new people better. I prefer to go through my initial awkward/quiet phase with new people online, where I can get comfortable knowing that people actually are speaking to me because they want to, rather than just because we happen to be in the same physical location. Previous
Re: (Score:2)
I would never bother to talk to otherwise, but occasionally there is something worth "liking" or chiming in on.
That sounds a bit narcissistic in relation to your group of friends. Of course many things "in relation to your friends" could be considered that, but this is very public. To me, it feels like two people standing in a grocer isle talking about a movie at the top of their lungs so everyone can hear them. Maybe a better analogy would be going to a party you were invited to and doing the same thing. The other patrons can choose to ignore it, but there's something inherent to the person doing the wall post
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of people with loud public phone voices and that shit-eating smirk that says, "people find me fascinating and want to hear every word I speak". God, those people get on my nerves! Unfortunately, some of them are family and friends.
Re: (Score:2)
That is definitely not me. I hate being the centre of attention in public. I don't mind so much giving my opinions online, but if you're going to get upset at people discussing things online then why even bother to post on Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure, that depends on what you think the point is. Since he was agreeing with someone who appeared to be insulting my attitude to commenting on Facebook, and comparing this attitude to people talking loudly on the phone, I think it might be you that missed the point.
Re: (Score:2)
, therefore it is definitely you who is not getting it.
Re: (Score:2)
The first guy was implying that only chatting to people when you feel you have something worthwhile to input is narcissistic. This is exactly how Slashdot works, and therefore when you take part in Slashdot discussions, you are doing the same thing, thinking people are interested in your opinions. I wonder if you typed out that last comment with a "shit-eating smirk" on your face?
Re: (Score:2)
Well at least your sig is appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, you just did it again!
Re: (Score:2)
If I thought my viewpoint was that important, I'd be "chiming in" on everything rather than where I felt it was relevant... but yes oftentimes I have to restrain myself from saying things just because they'll sound big headed, and because to be honest a lot of my friends are not geeks and would either just not appreciate or not understand certain things. I don't deny that I think I'm smarter than average (with good reason of course, I'm sure many Slashdotters will have been among the top performers in their
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking in bytes... just bits. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm posting this to clear my moderation. Clicked on the drop list, and immediately your comment was modded Flamebait when I was intending on Interesting. The drop box didn't even appear, and the page scrolled up as soon as I clicked it. Slashdot's new DHTML crap really irks me.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think there are a few interface components that have messages bubbling back up the chain even when they shouldn't be. Real pain in the ass when trying to edit comments and a click sends you to the top of the page..
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Foreword: I am not taking part in any social network (well, if you exclude LinkedIn but I am a completely passive user also in that case).
Yet you still feel qualified to comment?
I actually use a social network (Facebook), though generally only the bits I'm interested in (events, status updates, occasionally photos, contact details). I seem to have 280 "friends". Lots of them I ignore most of the time, but I want to passively keep in touch in case they're in London (most are, eventually).
I use it to keep in touch with people who live too far away -- just last week I arranged to meet up with some people I met at a music festival last year at a
Re: (Score:2)
The way I look at it: If the audience you're looking for is the type who only use Twitter, you' don't have anything interesting to say. Blogs are no different from a website with doesn't go stale thanks to regularly updated content.
People share these same news links on Twitter too, but we're doing it on Slashdot where the substance or length of a post is not restricted to "#mamagrizzly angry! hate #obamacare! grrrr!".
Are people missing out due to how popular these silly "social" tools are? Yeah, but th
Power law? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't really so surprising. Just like Twitters, most of the world's men have only shagged a few women, while a few guys have done it with hundreds. A huge number of people live on a dollar a day, but some guys at the top can make over a billion a year. Most entertainers are unknown wedding singers, but a few are known by everyone on the planet.
Not saying it's right or wrong, just these kinds of distribution occur.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called the 80-20 rule. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle [wikipedia.org].
Not quite the same (Score:2)
While Pareto principle splits the data into 2 distinct categories, the Power law is continuous :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law [wikipedia.org]
But they both say the same. A few individual have the most.
Only, as the power law is continuous, using it, if you tell it how many friends or followers you have on FaceBook/Twitter/Slashdot/etc. it can predict how many other users are in your situation.
Steal? (Score:2)
You can only steal what anyone else wants. Else it's just taking it without a challenge.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Bullshit. I don't.
The beauty of twitter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All those so-called twitter- or facebook-revolutions are actually more accurately described as Al Jazeera revolutions. Not that they tried to flame them, but just that they brought real journalism to people. Or maybe they would have happened anyway, since people were fed up with oppression.
Re: (Score:2)
Which were felled by massive, in-person protests.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like in this photo? [wikipedia.org]
Just because you listen to bad news sources who focus mostly on people using their favorite buzzword, "Twitter", doesn't mean that's all that was going on. The protests were considerable, as was the brutal suppression of demonstrators, which may well have escalated to the type we're seeing in Libya these days.
I think the problem with the protests in Iran was in large part timing and an overwhelming sense of futility. If it had happened now, following successful uprisings in oth
Not even 15 minutes of fame... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Long time ago (as in before the term "blog" was invented and when Geocities was gave you a whopping 5 MB to set up your free web site) this got an Internet version already: "everybody can be famous for 15 people".
I'm sure this still applies for Twitter, and Blogger, and related sites. As for Twitter I'm also in the "I don't get it" category. Twittering about having just finished a tough meeting or having an egg with your breakfast is so uninteresting, and the 140 character limit doesn't allow for any more
Missing proper filtering mechanisms (Score:2)
I've been using Twitter for around half a year now. In some ways it's highly useful. I use it mainly to share links and some casual observations. There are times when I participate in brief discussions as well.
There's one thing the whole concept fails at, though: following. The system is just too general by default. There is no simple way for me to cherry pick topics I'm interested in. I know there are hashtags but they don't quite fit the bill. I would like to be able to combine these concepts somehow (fol
Re: (Score:2)
In some ways it's highly useful. I use it mainly to share links and some casual observations.
...Which no one gives a shit about.
Well, of course (Score:3)
The definition of celebrity is "Someone who is known by more people than they know" - of course Charlie Sheen is followed by more people than he follows. He also appears in more celebrity magazines than his followers.
Next you'll be surprised that there are more people reading Linus Torvald's blog than he reads in return.
I use Twitter to keep in contact with a few people I know in person (20-30), and to keep up with a few people who say things I'm interested (about the same again). Same as with Livejournal/Blogs.
No, the average person isn't interested in whether I went to the cinema and enjoyed Rango - but (some of) my friends are. So I wouldn't expect to get followed by 10,000 people - just by my friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, that actually points out a numerical use for this. I've long felt that the Internet was a great equalizing force on the social landscape. No longer do TV and movie studios have a monopoly on world-wide fame and celebrity. With the Internet, anyone who comes up with something interesting or catchy enough can become famous worldwide.
The problem wa
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of celebrity is "Someone who is known by more people than they know"
Hrm. I have REALLY bad memory for names and faces - does that count?
Re: (Score:2)
If your friends don't care about what you've been up to, and what activities you enjoyed or didn't, then I wouldn't want to switch social lives with you.
And the system will be gamed to death (Score:2)
Not really astonishing... (Score:2)
It just shows that Twitter follows Zipf's Law (or at least Pareto's Law). As more and more people join Twitter, the balance gets shifted more and more to the top few.
Twitter..gossip for the technology age (Score:3)
The only thing I want to read in 140 words or less is the weather.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing I want to read in 140 words or less is the weather.
You're welcome [swasalert.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Don't figure I need alerts to my cell, 'cuz when I'm dependent upon it I'm out in the weather.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter gets me in touch with other developers, and I learn about new software through mentions and retweets. Twitter is just another tool, but I've found it more useful than Facebook and such.
oh look, follow the leader (Score:2)
Consumed? (Score:2)
I was wondewing why I haven't been getting my tweets! They been consumed by a tiny puhcentage of da usahs.
Sewiouswy... "consume"?
0.2% of users consume 50% of utilized capacity??!! (Score:2)
No (bird) dog in this hunt... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as someone who signed up to see what the fuss was about...you're not missing much. There's no more content having an account then just going to twitter.com; it only allows you to subscribe and organize posts. tweeting feels a lot like yelling into a crowded room full of deaf people.
I don't get it, honestly.
So then.. (Score:2)
It's just like a real live social network? Glad we wrapped this one up, experiment successful apparently. Besides, isn't it nice to know that the introverts need no longer be bothered by the popular extroverts taking up oxygen in the real world when they can be blathering away online or following celebrity blather? I think of it as a solution to the info sphere version of second hand smoke.
Pareto's principle (Score:2)
Duh. (Score:2)
Anyone who hasn't figured out by now that twitter is really only good for advertising and ego-tripping attention whores probably is an ego-tripping attention whore.
Re: (Score:2)