Slashdot Mirror
50% of Tweets Consumed Come From .05% of Users
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.'"
Twitter is such a shit social tool I actually started unfollowing all my friends; it's still great for following news feeds, though.
"90 percent of everything is crap"
I read that as "0.05% of Twitter users have something interesting to say."
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.
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.
which is totally what she said
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. Previously I used MSN for that, now it's generally Facebook.
People (and most importantly, women!) get to like me a lot faster when I get a chance to speak to them online rather than just in real life. I'm generally quite quiet with new people until I feel comfortable around them, and a lot of people take that to mean that I just don't want to speak to them, when in fact I'm just not sure if they actually want me speaking to them. Online, especially in non realtime chats, it's really easy to blow someone off - so if someone is speaking to you, you know they actually want to.
which is totally what she said
The real secret of success of twitter is that it makes the other 99.5% of narcissists believe that what they write is Really Important. Remember the Twitter Revolution in the Islamic Republic of Iran? Twitter users really thought that their tweets were important, and all they had to do was wish hard enough and the theocracy would fall. Strangely enough, it didn't happen. I know, I don't get it, either. How many bloggers changed their page backgrounds to green? Still, the religious nuts didn't get the signal. If they would have all had twitter accounts, they would have seen just how much opposition there was, and surely they would have resigned - to avoid the devastating ridicule of twitter users if nothing else. Another thing: either there needs to be a universal translator or these theocrats need to have mandatory English lessons, otherwise how can they understand the depth of condemnation the world sends their way?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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 festival later this year. I found out that my friends in Japan were fine as soon as I heard of the earthquake.
I use it to arrange stuff with people who live near me. A close friend invited me (in person) to his BBQ a couple of weeks ago. "I'm thinking of having a BBQ on Sunday, can you come?" "Yes" "OK, I'll send you a Facebook invite with the details". No doubt 80% of the people invited weren't asked in person, but so what? Your [great-]grandparents would say phoning round is no good, and you should write everyone a letter.
I also use it to get "invites" to gigs/nightclubs/events I like. They conveniently appear on my smartphone's calendar; it seems the easiest way to hear about "special tomorrow: free entry to X before midnight".
Large amount of traffic from small amount of users, and a large majority of those are spam.
New Economic Perspectives
Twitter was originally conceived as a way for everyone to voice their thoughts and provide visibility to others into their lives. After this, my only conclusion is that NO, technology by itself won't make everybody famous and followed. Things happen in the twitterverse just as they happen in the real world, that is, most people disappear in their irrelevance while a few get followed and admired by everybody. Sad but true, you're lucky if you even get your 15 minutes of fame...
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 (follow this person's tweets tagged this and that).
Perhaps it would make sense to provide specific pipes (ie. sports, art, programming, ...) that can be used to transmit specific type of information and in which other people can subscribe to. I believe this would provide a nice compromise, at least for me.
It's possible I have been missing something obvious all this time. Just thought to elaborate on my issues with Twitter. :)
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.
My Journal
Bullshit. I don't.
Twitter, to me, is just the combination of one fairly new concept - cell phone texting - and one old and antiquated concept - the POTS "party line". Consequently it takes interpersonal gossip and makes it broadcast gossip..
The only thing I want to read in 140 words or less is the weather.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
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 made a big deal about how it was unlike email because it allowed people to receive messages without an expectation of having to reply. They've quietened-down about this, possibly because the concept of speaking without listening is a rather elitist one (which is why the elite love it).
But I can see how Twitter crushed RSS. It's much easier to create a personal feed via Twitter that RSS, just like pre-fab blogs killed off personal Geocities-type websites.
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.
Better known as 318230.
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 you. That's pretty much it.
So what do you do with this? Different people do different things. The game means different things to different people, and the appeal varies as well. Your question seems simple enough but there isn't a single good answer except that they all find something compelling about the relative freedom.
I suspect that as the developer finishes the game this appeal will narrow and your question will get a better answer.