Twitter Presenting 2010

1,477 views

Published on

The presentation version for BarCamp Canberra 2010 #bcc2010

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,477
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Twitter Presenting 2010

  1. 1. Twitter metrics and measure Why (more than how to) analyse Twitter Dr Stephen Dann School of Management Marketing & International Business, Australian National University @stephendann or stephen.dann@anu.edu.au
  2. 2. Why dissect a living medium?
  3. 3. Metrics <ul><li>What gets measured gets done </li></ul><ul><li>What gets done can be measured </li></ul><ul><li>What gets tweeted can be assembled into little diagrams with neat colour schemes </li></ul>
  4. 5. Why bother? “Okay, so if we’re going to do it, can it be done well?” “No?” “How about medium rare?”
  5. 6. Coding the Streams <ul><li>Krishnamurthy et al (2008) </li></ul><ul><li>users were classified by </li></ul><ul><ul><li>follower/following counts, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Numbers and ratios </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>means and mechanisms of their engagement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Web (61.7%), mobile/text (7.5%), software (22.4%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>volume of use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tweets per time period </li></ul></ul></ul>http://www.thegreenhead.com/2008/09/slice-solutions-pie-pan-divider-creates-perfect-slices.php
  6. 7. Coding the Streams <ul><li>Java et al 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>1,348,543 tweets </li></ul><ul><li>76,177 users </li></ul><ul><li>April 01, to May 30, 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>Four meta-categories </li></ul><ul><li>daily chatter </li></ul><ul><li>conversations </li></ul><ul><li>information / URL sharing </li></ul><ul><li>news reporting </li></ul>http://www.thegreenhead.com/2008/09/slice-solutions-pie-pan-divider-creates-perfect-slices.php
  7. 8. Analysis 2: The Quickening <ul><li>Jansen et al (2009) </li></ul><ul><li>tweets with brand name </li></ul><ul><li>expression of brand sentiment </li></ul><ul><li>13-week period </li></ul><ul><ul><li>April 4, 2008 to July 3, 2008. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>650 reporting episodes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>13 x 50 brands </li></ul></ul><ul><li>149,472 tweets </li></ul>
  8. 9. Analysis 3: Oh, those guys <ul><li>Pear Analytics (2009) </li></ul><ul><li>2000 tweets </li></ul><ul><li>11am to 5pm </li></ul><ul><li>10 working days </li></ul><ul><li>Six part classification </li></ul><ul><li>news (3.6%), </li></ul><ul><li>spam (3.75%), </li></ul><ul><li>self-promotion (5.85%), </li></ul><ul><li>pointless babble (40.55%) </li></ul><ul><li>conversational (37.55%) </li></ul><ul><li>pass-along value (8.70%). </li></ul>
  9. 10. Where’s the party @? <ul><li>Honeycutt and Herring (2009) </li></ul><ul><li>four one-hour samples </li></ul><ul><li>four-hour intervals </li></ul><ul><li>6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, on January 11, 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Sample of 200 tweets coded with grounded methodology </li></ul><ul><li>1) Addressivity: Directs a message to another person </li></ul><ul><li>2) Reference: Makes reference to another person, but </li></ul><ul><li>does not direct a message to him or her. </li></ul><ul><li>3) Emoticon: Used as part of an emoticon. </li></ul><ul><li>4) Email: Used as part of an email address. </li></ul><ul><li>5) Locational 'at': Signals where an entity is located. </li></ul><ul><li>6) Non-locational 'at': Used to represent the preposition 'at' other than in the sense of location. </li></ul><ul><li>7) Other: Uses not fitting into any other category, </li></ul>
  10. 11. Categories <ul><li>Naaman, Boase and Lai (2010) </li></ul><ul><li>Sample of 400 tweets </li></ul><ul><ul><li>more than one category was assigned to a single message. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sampling frame </li></ul><ul><ul><li>125,593 unique user IDs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ personal’ Twitter users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>10 friends, 10 followers, 10 messages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>911 users </li></ul></ul><ul><li>N = 350 users </li></ul><ul><li>The Categories </li></ul><ul><li>Information Sharing </li></ul><ul><li>Self Promotion </li></ul><ul><li>Opinions/Complaints </li></ul><ul><li>Statements and Random Thoughts </li></ul><ul><li>Me now </li></ul><ul><li>Question to followers </li></ul><ul><li>Presence Maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Anecdote (me) </li></ul><ul><li>Anecdote (others) </li></ul>
  11. 12. Tweet, Tweet, Retweet <ul><li>danah boyd </li></ul><ul><li>Scott Golder </li></ul><ul><li>Gilad Lotan </li></ul><ul><li>Microsoft! </li></ul><ul><li>Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter </li></ul><ul><li>Process of RT </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Preservation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shrtn </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attribution / Authorship </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Rationale </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Amplify </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Entertain </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Visible listening </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Agreement </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Support </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>AOL/me too </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Self gain </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Self archive </li></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 13. The consistent theme <ul><li>People keep using Twitter for personal use. </li></ul><ul><li>Discussions of “self” </li></ul><ul><li>Pointless babble </li></ul><ul><li>Conversational </li></ul><ul><li>All criticisms of the use of twitter for pleasure and personal consumption </li></ul>
  13. 14. What Twitter looks like… <ul><li>… and how are people using Twitter? </li></ul>Twitter – www.twitter.com ‘ Sup?
  14. 15. Recoding the Platform Let’s do it my way
  15. 16. Theory and Ideology <ul><li>Useful versus Enjoyable </li></ul><ul><li>Bohme (2006) outlines a propensity of society to classify technology of all forms into </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ useful and therefore valuable” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ enjoyable, therefore irrelevant”. </li></ul></ul>Böhme, G (2006) Technical Gadgetry: Technological Development in the Aesthetic Economy, Thesis Eleven, 86 (1): 54-66
  16. 17. Why do it? <ul><li>Twitter is not about the aggregate firehose </li></ul><ul><li>Twitter is how you use it. </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis: what (twitter history) as an indicator of how (use of the service) </li></ul>
  17. 18. Method <ul><li>Grounded Theory </li></ul><ul><li>Broad categories based on / supported by six prior studies </li></ul><ul><li>Sub categories developed from theory and data </li></ul><ul><li>Bunch of different boxes for sorting the letters </li></ul><ul><li>Personal Twitter History </li></ul><ul><li>@stephendann </li></ul><ul><ul><li>274 Following / </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>355 Followers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2841 messages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mar 13 2007 to Aug 18 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sujathan (2009) “ Twitter to pdf ” software. </li></ul>
  18. 19. Categories and Results Doesn’t scale to the public sphere! Huzzah! NO MASS GENERALISATION POSSIBLE!
  19. 20. Major Categories <ul><li>Conversational </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Uses an @statement to address another user </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Status </li></ul><ul><ul><li>An answer to “What are you doing now?”. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Pass along </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tweets of endorsement of content </li></ul></ul><ul><li>News </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifiable news content which is not UGC </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Phatic </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Content independent connected presence </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Spam </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Junk traffic, unsolicited automated posts, and other automated tweets generated without user consent </li></ul></ul>
  20. 21. Minor Categories <ul><li>Conversational </li></ul><ul><li>1. Query </li></ul><ul><li>2. Referral </li></ul><ul><li>3. Action </li></ul><ul><li>4. Response </li></ul><ul><li>Status </li></ul><ul><li>1. Personal </li></ul><ul><li>2. Temporal </li></ul><ul><li>3. Location </li></ul><ul><li>4. Mechanical </li></ul><ul><li>5. Physical </li></ul><ul><li>6. Work </li></ul><ul><li>7. Activity </li></ul><ul><li>Pass along </li></ul><ul><li>1. RT </li></ul><ul><li>2. UGC </li></ul><ul><li>3. Endorsement </li></ul><ul><li>News </li></ul><ul><li>1. Headlines </li></ul><ul><li>2. Sport </li></ul><ul><li>3. Event </li></ul><ul><li>4. Weather </li></ul><ul><li>Phatic </li></ul><ul><li>1. Greeting </li></ul><ul><li>2. Fourth wall </li></ul><ul><li>3. Broadcast </li></ul><ul><li>4. Unclassifiable </li></ul><ul><li>Spam </li></ul>
  21. 22. Results - @stephendann
  22. 23. Questions [email_address] Or @stephendann
  23. 24. Twitter! (What is it good for?) <ul><li>health community (Berger 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>public libraries (Cahill 2009, Cuddy 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>political campaigns (Cetina 2009, Henneburg et al 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>business (Dudley 2009; Power and Forte 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>journalism (Ettama 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>civil unrest and protests (Fahmi 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>social activism (Galer-Unti 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>live coverage of events (Gay et al 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>eyewitness accounts (Lariscy et al 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>government (Macintosh 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>education (Parslow 2009). </li></ul>
  24. 25. Uses and usage <ul><li>casual listening platform </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Crawford 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>creating the illusion of physicality </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hohl 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>sense of connectedness and relationship </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Henneburg et al 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>venue for conversation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Steiner 2009 </li></ul></ul>
  25. 26. References <ul><li>Böhme, G (2006) Technical Gadgetry: Technological Development in the Aesthetic Economy, Thesis Eleven, 86 (1): 54-66 </li></ul><ul><li>Cetina, K K 2009, What is a Pipe? bama and the Sociological Imagination, Theory, Culture & Society 2009 26(5): 129–140 </li></ul><ul><li>Crawford, K (2009)'Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media',Continuum,23:4,525 — 535 </li></ul><ul><li>Dudley, E 2009, Editorial: Lines of Communication, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 2009; 41; 131-134 </li></ul><ul><li>Ettama, J 2009 New media and new mechanisms of public accountability, Journalism 2009; 10; 319-321 </li></ul><ul><li>Fahmi, W S 2009, Bloggers' street movement and the right to the city. (Re)claiming Cairo's real and virtual &quot;spaces of freedom&quot;, Environment and Urbanization 2009; 21; 89-107 </li></ul><ul><li>Galer-Unti, R 2009, Guerilla Advocacy: Using Aggressive Marketing Techniques for Health Policy Change, Health Promotion Practice, 10; 325-327 </li></ul><ul><li>Gay, P Plait, P, Raddick, J, Cain, F and Lakdawalla, E (2009) &quot;Live Casting: Bringing Astronomy to the Masses in Real Time&quot;, CAP Journal, June 26-29 </li></ul><ul><li>Henneburg, S. Scammell, M and O'Shaughnessy, N (2009) Political marketing management and theories of democracy, Marketing Theory 2009; 9; 165-188 </li></ul><ul><li>Honeycutt, C and Herring, S C (2009) Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter, (2009). Proceedings of the Forty-Second Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press. 1-10, http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/honeycutt.herring.2009.pdf </li></ul><ul><li>Jansen, B, Zhang, M, Sobel, K and Chowdury, A (2009) Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11):2169–2188, 2009 http://ist.psu.edu/faculty_pages/jjansen/academic/jansen_twitter_electronic_word_of_mouth.pdf </li></ul><ul><li>Java, A, Song, X, Finin, T and Tseng, B (2007) Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities, Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop ’07 , August 12, 2007, p 56-65 </li></ul>
  26. 27. References <ul><li>Krishnamurthy, B, Gill, P and Arlitt, M (2008) A Few Chirps About Twitter, WOSN'08, August 18, 2008, 19-24 </li></ul><ul><li>Lariscy, R Avery, E J, Sweetser, K and Howes, P 2009 An examination of the role of online social media in journalists’ source mix, Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 314–316 </li></ul><ul><li>Macintosh, A 2009, The emergence of digital governance, Significance, December, 176-178 </li></ul><ul><li>Naaman, M, Boase, J and Lai, C-H (2010) Is it Really About Me? Message Content in Social Awareness Streams, CSCW 2010, February 6–10 </li></ul><ul><li>Parslow, G, 2009, Commentary: Twitter for Educational Networking, BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 255–256, 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Pear Analytics (2009) Twitter Study – August 2009, http://www.pearanalytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Twitter-Study-August-2009.pdf </li></ul><ul><li>Power, R and Forte, D 2008, War & Peace in Cyberspace: Don’t twitter away your organisation’s secrets, Computer Fraud and Security, August, 18-20 </li></ul><ul><li>Zhao, D and Rosson, M B, How and Why People Twitter: The Role that Micro-blogging Plays in Informal Communication at Work, GROUP’04, May 10–13, 2009, 243-252 </li></ul>
  27. 28. <ul><li>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/au/ </li></ul>

×