2 ms·
Approaching useless. And here's some quotes from the article: "None of that data is particularly useful, since so much of the action on Twitter occurs via mob
by softbuilder 18y ago
Approaching useless.
And here's some quotes from the article:
"None of that data is particularly useful, since so much of the action on Twitter occurs via mobile phones, instant messaging and desktop clients"
"Note: It’s not clear what the 1 million total users refers to, since there are many more registered users"
Also, note the commenters saying that the count is higher/lower than expected. Plus some not sure what to expect. I'm not hating on Twitter or the OP, just find the data rather meaningless.
- wanorris 18y agoI stand corrected. Site traffic is definitely a weak metric, and total users indeed probably isn't that interesting. I find the 200K active users/week and 3M messages quite interesting. I admit, it would be more enlightening to know the distribution -- or at least something like the median number of messages per active user -- but that's a pretty good sense of the reach of Twitter.
- softbuilder 18y agoI hear what you're saying. Seeing some numbers does at least indicate people are using it. So if that was in doubt before, I guess it isn't now. But did anyone really doubt it?