<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Web Ecology Project &#187; mc hammer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.webecologyproject.org/tag/mc-hammer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.webecologyproject.org</link>
	<description>Researching Quantized Social Interaction</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:00:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>MC Hammer Can&#8217;t Touch Social Media Geeks, Tweeting Cats When it Comes to Influence on Twitter</title>
		<link>http://www.webecologyproject.org/2009/08/mc-hammer-cant-touch-social-media-geeks-tweeting-cats-when-it-comes-to-influence-on-twitter/#utm_source=feed&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=feed</link>
		<comments>http://www.webecologyproject.org/2009/08/mc-hammer-cant-touch-social-media-geeks-tweeting-cats-when-it-comes-to-influence-on-twitter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:46:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Web Ecology Research</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Quantitative Data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[influence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mc hammer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.webecologyproject.org/?p=203</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Preview of WEP Report #4
When deciding whether someone is worth following or talking to on Twitter, most of us make a snap judgment based on a user&#8217;s follower count, but what does this really tell us?
For our fourth publication, the Web Ecology Project decided to move beyond follower count to find a better way [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="subhead">A Preview of WEP Report #4</div>
<p class="first">When deciding whether someone is worth following or talking to on Twitter, most of us make a snap judgment based on a user&#8217;s follower count, but what does this really tell us?</p>
<p>For our fourth publication, the Web Ecology Project decided to move beyond follower count to find a better way to measure influence on Twitter. Focusing in on a handful of celebrities, news outlets, and social media experts widely perceived to be among the Twitter elite, we looked at the extent to which each of these users can:</p>
<ul type="disc">
<li>Spread content through twitter by generating Retweets and Via&#8217;s</li>
<li>Foster conversation by generating @s and Replies</li>
</ul>
<p>The results, taken from 10 days of Twitter activity (August 15th through August 24th), were surprising. Consider how the users we looked at rank by follower count:
<p>
<img src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chma=50,50,50,50&#038;chbh=a&#038;chs=500x300&#038;chd=t:3407385,2712530,2092541,2018016,1363510,1331797,1089984,862790,605441,193625,94715,94295&#038;chds=0,3500000&#038;chco=E00000&#038;cht=bhs&#038;chtt=|Followers&#038;chts=000000,20&#038;chxt=x,y&#038;chxl=0:|0|.5m|1m|1.5m|2m|2.5m|3m|3.5m|1:|Scobleizer|chrisbrogan|CNN|ijustine|garyvee|sockington|MCHammer|mashable|BarackObama|THE_REAL_SHAQ|cnnbrk|aplusk" alt="Follower Rankings"/></p>
<p>When you look at the extent to which any given tweet can spread content or foster conversation, these rankings change significantly:
<p>
<img src=http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chma=50,50,50,50&#038;chbh=a&#038;chs=500x300&#038;chd=t:72.45454545,47.55223881,36.78571429,22.64864865,22.23529412,20.390625,4.12,2.333333333,2.304347826,1.701960784,1.431034483,0.829439252&#038;chds=0,80&#038;chco=E00000&#038;cht=bhs&#038;chtt=|Avg.%20Content%20Spread%20Per%20Tweet&#038;chts=000000,20&#038;chxt=x,y&#038;chxl=0:|0|10|20|30|40|50|60|70|80|1:|garyvee|chrisbrogan|Scobleizer|MCHammer|ijustine|sockington|CNN|THE_REAL_SHAQ|aplusk|BarackObama|mashable|cnnbrk|" alt="average content spread per tweet"/><br />
<br/><br />
<img src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chma=50,50,50,50&#038;chbh=a&#038;chs=500x300&#038;chd=t:252.2941176,209.4459459,51,47.72463768,31.57142857,14.04975124,13.859375,12.88,10.1826087,7.324766355,3.458823529,2.703448276&#038;chds=0,280&#038;chco=E00000&#038;cht=bhs&#038;chtt=|Avg.%20Conversation%20Activity%20Per%20Tweet&#038;chts=000000,20&#038;chxt=x,y&#038;chxl=0:|0|35|70|105|140|175|210|245|280|1:|chrisbrogan|Scobleizer|garyvee|MCHammer|sockington|CNN|mashable|BarackObama|ijustine|cnnbrk|aplusk|THE_REAL_SHAQ" alt="average conversation activity per tweet"/></p>
<p>iJustine, for example, can spread more content than MCHammer, who has over twice as many followers, and in terms of generating conversation celebrities like THE_REAL_SHAQ and aplusk tower dominate news outlets and social media experts alike. </p>
<p>When you look at how much each of these users is able to generate conversation and spread content relative to their follower counts, however, the rankings shift even more dramatically:</p>
<p><img src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chma=50,50,50,50&#038;chbh=a&#038;chs=500x300&#038;chd=t:13.14469725,7.009849579,6.73983215,4.602577019,0.4918728,0.411455858,0.293821635,0.265921865,0.255201148,0.198979274,0.180641622,0.0944968&#038;chds=0,14&#038;chco=E00000&#038;cht=bhs&#038;chtt=|Avg.%20Content%20Spread%20Per%201,000%20Followers&#038;chts=000000,20&#038;chxt=x,y&#038;chxl=0:|0|2|4|6|8|10|12|14|1:|sockington|THE_REAL_SHAQ|MCHammer|BarackObama|ijustine|cnnbrk|garyvee|aplusk|Scobleizer|CNN|mashable|chrisbrogan|" alt="average content spread per 1000 followers"/><br />
<br/><br />
<img src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chma=50,50,50,50&#038;chbh=a&#038;chs=500x300&#038;chd=t:69.81998627,17.93308235,15.14783731,14.31819349,8.129611308,7.110731543,5.433535391,2.979153097,1.372581557,0.670652046,0.561099785,0.484138877&#038;chds=0,70&#038;chco=E00000&#038;cht=bhs&#038;chtt=|Avg.%20Conversation%20Activity%20Per%201,000%20Followers&#038;chts=000000,20&#038;chxt=x,y&#038;chxl=0:|0|10|20|30|40|50|60|70|1:|BarackObama|cnnbrk|sockington|MCHammer|THE_REAL_SHAQ|garyvee|aplusk|ijustine|mashable|CNN|Scobleizer|chrisbrogan|" alt="average conversation activity per 1000 followers"/></p>
<p>Values for MCHammer, aplusk, THE_REAL_SHAQ and CNNbrk plummet, while the social media experts, especially Chris Brogan, become powerful players. </p>
<p>These figures are just a taste of what&#8217;s to come.  In our full report, we’ll unpack these numbers further and explore the somewhat surprising nuances and types of influence on Twitter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.webecologyproject.org/2009/08/mc-hammer-cant-touch-social-media-geeks-tweeting-cats-when-it-comes-to-influence-on-twitter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
