Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Of 1.2 Billion Twitter Posts, 71% Are Ignored

Posted by timothy on from the stunning-underestimate dept.

destinyland writes "1.2 billion Twitter 'tweets' were analyzed over two months by analytics company Sysomos, who concluded that a whopping 71% of them got no reaction whatsoever — no online responses, and no Twitter 'retweets.' 'Only a small number of users actually have the ability to engage on Twitter in a significant way,' the researchers conclude, noting that just 6% of Twitter's status updates ever get retweeted (while 23% get a reply). And among those status updates, 85% have exactly one response, while only 1.53% of Twitter conversations are more than three levels deep — where a reply receives a response which then generates a second reply." I am astounded by the claim that nearly three out of ten tweets actually do get any response.

18 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. aww... by metalmaster · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess all the "i showered" "I dressed" "I got in the car" "I drove to work/school" ect... tales of peoples' day just arent *that* exciting

    1. Re:aww... by somersault · · Score: 5, Insightful

      just because something didn't get an answer, doesn't mean it was "ignored"..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:aww... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      just because something didn't get an answer, doesn't mean it was "ignored"..

      So, then tweets are like prayers?:

      --
      My blog
    3. Re:aww... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Informative

      just because something didn't get an answer, doesn't mean it was "ignored"..

      The true stats are worse ... as I'll explain below:

      I am astounded by the claim that nearly three out of ten tweets actually do get any response.

      I'm not. "Social marketers" buy twitter accounts in bulk - ten cents apiece.

      Many of the "responses" are from one "bought" account to another to try to generate "buzz" - the true level is probably in the single digits.

    4. Re:aww... by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its usually a good indication that they are ignored or virtually ignored.

      So the social rule on twitter is to always acknowledge receipt of any post? When someone says "I'm in section 2A of the stadium", you're supposed to tweet back "ack'd" instead of going to talk with them in person? If a twitterer gets any responses at all, ever, then that's a good indication that all of their stuff is being read by someone, but only a few things merit a response.

    5. Re:aww... by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't do twitter, but I thought the purpose of it was to actually READ the twits, rather than having to respond or forward them? If they're read then they have served their purpose and were not ignored.

      At some point, a conversation has to end. "meet me at the library", "ok, see you there", "ok, got your reply see you there too", "I already said that", "acknowledged", "shut up already", "shutting up now", "nm", "here's a pic of my cat"

  2. Not surprised by jareth-0205 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't really see why this is a particularly surprising statistic. So most Tweets are only read by users... Most Slashdot stories I don't reply to and only read, does that mean that Slashdot is somehow limited or has a large number of dead stories? Of course not, it's just that most people do lots more reading than writing.

    1. Re:Not surprised by MrMarket · · Score: 5, Funny

      Agreed. On /., a response increases the probability that the story was *not* read.

  3. Not the point by tpstigers · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why are we assuming that tweets are intended to net a response?

    1. Re:Not the point by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why would you talk without intending a response?

      I've been meaning to ask my mother-in-law that very question for years now.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Seems low by cindyann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In my case, 100% are ignored.

  5. Dumb title by jonescb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because nobody replies to the tweet doesn't mean people aren't reading it.

  6. 'Not replied to' != 'ignored' by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You might as well say that X% of newspaper articles are 'ignored' because they don't generate letters to the Editor about them.

    I am NOT expressing any opinion on the subjective usefulness of the average tweet, however.

    --
    This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
  7. Character limit by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

    The problem is that it's very difficult to fit what you want to say into 140 characters. Unless you're into text speak, you may find that y

    --
    Summation 2
  8. purpose by frozentier · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Twitter isn't designed for discussions, it's designed for announcements. If a weatherman makes an announcement that a tornado is forming north of a city, you wouldn't expect everyone - or anyone for that matter - to call him up and have a discussion about it.

  9. Approaching 80-20 by srussia · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pareto strikes again!

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  10. Re:They don't seem to understand the purpose by value_added · · Score: 4, Funny

    Back in the dinosaur age if something happened to you(passed a test got herpes whatever) you would actually have to phone/write several people saying the exact same thing. You weren't always looking for a response but just wanted to share the news. Thats what twitter is for.

    No wonder I can't figure this twitter thing out. I'm out of school and don't have herpes.

  11. Sounds like... by binaryseraph · · Score: 5, Funny

    Slashdot.