Commentary

Michael Hickins
 

Twitter Forty Percent 'Pointless Babble'

Two reports surfaced in the past couple of days that, put side by side, offer an amusing look at Twitter usage, painting it as a playground of the hyperactive and the self-obsessed, doling out wit and foolishness in almost equal measure.

Two reports surfaced in the past couple of days that, put side by side, offer an amusing look at Twitter usage, painting it as a playground of the hyperactive and the self-obsessed, doling out wit and foolishness in almost equal measure.Conflating the results of both studies, Twitter looks like the province of the solipsistic, with most Tweets (other than those from news sites) being spat out by technology, marketing or tech-marketing oriented folks pontificating about -- you guessed it -- Twitter.

Maybe from now on the first rule of Twitter should be, "you do not talk about Twitter."


More Insights

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Webcasts

More >>

One report, from new-media consultants Pearl Analytics, divided Tweets into broad categories, while the other, from social media analytics firm Sysomos, listed the most prolific Tweeters (among those who actually have an audience -- not people simply barking into the void; their methodology is here).

Put together, the two surveys give us an interesting picture of the Twitterscape and its influencers.

Pearl Analytics analyzed 2,000 tweets from the public timeline (in English and in the US) over a 2-week period from 11:00am to 5:00pm (CST) and captured tweets in half-hour increments. They then categorized them into 6 buckets:

News, Spam, Self-Promotion, Pointless Babble, Conversational and Pass-Along Value

According to their analysis, 40.55 percent of Tweets fell into the Pointless Babble bucket, 3.75 percent was Spam, and another 5.85 percent was Self Promotion -- which means that almost exactly half (50.15 percent) of all Tweets are entirely without value to anyone.

But put another way, almost half of all Tweets are valuable to some extent. While that may not sound like a lot, it represents a higher proportion of valuable content than, say, television, or what Hollywood dishes out as entertainment.

Now, looking at who is doing most of the Tweeting, Sysomos compiled a list of the most prolific Tweeters (and I've added their vocations in parenthesis)

  • Chris Brogan (new media marketing guru)
  • Thomas Clifford (self-described tech geek)
  • BBC News
  • Lucretia Pruitt (self-described tech geek mom)
  • John Johnston (social media marketing consultant)
  • New York Times
  • Lucky Days (airhead who hasn't actually Tweeted since February 2)
  • Meg Fowler (web marketing copy writer)
  • Others on the list include Web strategist David Armano, tech guru Guy Kawasaki and tech blogger Robert Scoble.

    So, excluding news sites, most prolific Tweeters are either new media marketing types promoting themselves by sharing some of their expertise (a marketing version of paying it forward, I suppose), or tech mavens promoting their respective consulting and speaking businesses by demonstrating (showing off?) their acumen.

    If you hold the conclusions of these vastly different surveys simultaneously in your mind, you get the idea that Tweeting is like electronic tent preaching to a congregation of like-minded preachers. If that sounds tiresome, it's because it probably is. My own experience, though, is that it's worth putting up with the predictable river of babble for the sake of an occasional gem.

    Sometimes statistics and analysis run counter to everything we know in our bones about something, and sometimes they confirm what we suspected all along. In this case, at least for me, I was amused to see confirmed something I suspected about Twitter, which is that it's the most valuable waste of time I've ever come across.


    Related Reading




    Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

    Single tags

    These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

    <br> Defines a single line break

    <hr> Defines a horizontal line

    Matching tags

    These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

    <a> Defines an anchor

    <b> Defines bold text

    <big> Defines big text

    <blockquote> Defines a long quotation

    <caption> Defines a table caption

    <cite> Defines a citation

    <code> Defines computer code text

    <em> Defines emphasized text

    <fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

    <h1> This is heading 1

    <h2> This is heading 2

    <h3> This is heading 3

    <h4> This is heading 4

    <h5> This is heading 5

    <h6> This is heading 6

    <i> Defines italic text

    <p> Defines a paragraph

    <pre> Defines preformatted text

    <q> Defines a short quotation

    <samp> Defines sample computer code text

    <small> Defines small text

    <span> Defines a section in a document

    <s> Defines strikethrough text

    <strike> Defines strikethrough text

    <strong> Defines strong text

    <sub> Defines subscripted text

    <sup> Defines superscripted text

    <u> Defines underlined text

    InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

    Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
    T-Shirt Giveaway T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting!
    Subscribe to RSS

    Resource Links