Comments on: More Truth About Twitter

By: Andre

Andre — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:12:56 +0000

I really like the infographic! I do agree with lepht’s comment ” If there’s only 100 twitter users how can five of them have more than 100 followers?” though. Don’t quite understand it.

By: Chris S. Cornell

Chris S. Cornell — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:59:13 +0000

Yes, you are certainly right. This graphic flat out misrepresents the figures in the original post. The person responsible for doing this work really needs to understand statistics and basic math, and the editor needs to double check.

By: Achim Kemmerling

Achim Kemmerling — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:31:18 +0000

Why not give half of the loudmouths, popular people a mixed color to show the intersection? (And, of course, reduce the total number to some 7 or 8).

Best

By: Sebastian Waack

Sebastian Waack — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:34:33 +0000

@david The first image is puzzling to me mixing up to many aspects (tweets, followers, bots …) while leaving to many people unexplained; what are the grey people doing the whole twitter day long? Maybe you could visualize as an underlying aspect the tweets per day from 0, 1, 2-9 and 10+ approximately corresponding to 85 “dead” and “lazy”, 6 “regular”, 8 “active” and 1 “loudmouth”. That would leave no grey people and also avoid the dilemma of how one can have more than 100 followers in a world of 100 people.
Anyway, thank you very much for your inspiring visualizations!

By: Fox

Fox — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 02:44:07 +0000

I have had a Twitter account since it first became known about but I never Tweet and only follow a local council. I have followed some big names in the past but 90-95% of the stuff on there is pure crap. I also do not allow anybody to follow me despite the best efforts of the leeches that like to attach themselves to anybody regardless of who they are and without even knowing them. At the end of the day Twitter is a huge network of accounts most (well over 90%) of which are dead, dormant or held by people who don’t see the point. I cannot see it lasting for long.

By: Fez

Fez — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:19:46 +0000

@NashvilleSEO and Ahdok – I think the ‘dead’ accounts, which are described as empty, are the accounts where people have signed up out of curiosity and never actually tweeted. This is what distinguishes them from the ‘lazy’ accounts.

By: Paul Wilson

Paul Wilson — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:51:18 +0000

If you have not tweeted in the last week it is likely that you are far from “lazy”. You are probably too busy to look at Twitter or Tweet.

What a ridiculous set of visuals and statements to go with the dubious interpretation of the data. It just shows how you can justify things with mis representation – I may show this to my students, as a warning against sloppy work.

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:35:00 +0000

There is no way to distinguish babble from other tweets without detailed knowledge of both the sender and recipients, self promotion could also be chatty and/or retweetable.There will be people who haven’t tweeted in the last week but have been/will be active at other times. Together with the other problems mentioned with the presentation of the information this ends up fairly useless.

By: Barney

Barney — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:58:23 +0000

An interesting insight into Twitter, would be good to go into a bit more detail, but i will be tweeting the news tweets i want RTing at the suggested time to see if there is any improvement.

What is the source of this information??

By: gifts for men

gifts for men — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:39:41 +0000

Great defence of and twitter and fascinating history of its development. Will circulate this to colleagues who trot out the â€˜why should I care what youâ€™re doing right nowâ€™ line.
Thanks.