Comments on: Why you can’t base twitter success and expertise on stats

By: What’s the ROI on conversations? | Sean Clark

What’s the ROI on conversations? | Sean Clark — Thu, 19 May 2011 12:55:25 +0000

[...] This post is dedicated to Huw Sayer, Gary Dickenson & Sally Ormond, following an involved Twitter discussion between us, over my recent post ROI in Social Media: Taking the Numbers Out of the Equation. And a subject Gary had covered in a post some 2 years previously: Why you can’t base twitter success and expertise on stats. [...]

By: How do you judge engagement on #Twitter? | Huw Sayer

How do you judge engagement on #Twitter? | Huw Sayer — Wed, 18 May 2011 11:13:45 +0000

[...] twitter. I originally posted them in reply to a post by Gary Dickenson (@GaryDickenson on http://www.creospace.co.uk/blog/2009/12/why-you-cant-base-twitter-success-and-expertise-on-stats/) and another by Sean Clark (on @SeanEClark’s [...]

By: Huw Sayer

Huw Sayer — Wed, 18 May 2011 08:33:55 +0000

Good post Gary – and something I have been saying for ages (well since last year). Just because someone follows you doesn’t mean they actively follow you (how can anyone genuinely follow 1000s of people). This habit of automatically following back is a particularly bad one. You should only follow people who interest you.

I follow people who engage with me (positively) – and who don’t fill their tweets with swearing (bit of a prude on that one). I also follow people who I see regularly getting RTs from other people I follow (and whose opinion I value). This is purely personal but I think businesses should apply a similar line of thinking.

Furthermore, I think the best way for a company to judge it’s influence is to look at the number of @ replies it gets – the number of @ tweets it sends in response (rather than the simple broadcast statements) – and, most importantly, the number of RTs it gets (either automatic or modified – MT).

In fact, I think MTs are particularly important indicators, even when a negative comment is added, because it shows that the person sending it is interested in the subject and wants to engage at some level. However, it is vital that the company doesn’t just leave the MT hanging – they have to reciprocate – acknowledge the MT and respond positively – in other words engage, wholeheartedly.

Cheers
Huw
PS: Also posting this comment to @SeanEClark’s blog http://seanclark.com/social-media/roi-in-social-media-taking-the-numbers-out-of-the-equation/

By: Ann Hawkins

Ann Hawkins — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:29:04 +0000

I missed this post the first time around (I’ve subscribed now so I won’t miss any more!) but I agree totally with what you say Gary. I’ve always thought all the “I’ve lost a follower” cries to be really sad but not as sad as the Follow Friday folks who RT lists simply because they’ve got their own name in.
The recent advent of Klout scores has further fooled the deluded into thinking they are influential when anyone who hasn’t got their head up their own backside can see that it simply doesn’t work like that.
Influence is about content and trust not the number of followers or even the number of RTs and, as Dazzx says, if you only join Twitter as a vanity exercise you’ve missed not only the point but most of the fun.

By: Tweets that mention Twitter experts and statistics that don't add up | Twitter advice | Social media | Norfolk-web-marketing-blog -- Topsy.com

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:14:02 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Darren , Gary Dickenson. Gary Dickenson said: New Blog: Why you can’t base twitter success and expertise on stats http://bit.ly/8NsqAD [...]