4 ms·
url - tweets - followers - ratio http://twitter.com/adobe http://twitter.com/adobe - 10,420 - 139,670 - 13.40 http://twitter.com/apple http://twitter.com/appl
by pyrotechnick 14y ago
url - tweets - followers - ratio
http://twitter.com/adobe http://twitter.com/adobe - 10,420 - 139,670 - 13.40
http://twitter.com/apple http://twitter.com/apple - 0 - 12,207 - ∞
http://twitter.com/facebook http://twitter.com/facebook - 997 - 5,673,552 - 5,690.62
http://twitter.com/google http://twitter.com/google - 3,820 - 5,382,253 - 1,408.97
http://twitter.com/hp http://twitter.com/hp - 17,318 - 162,246 - 9.37
http://twitter.com/microsoft http://twitter.com/microsoft - 3,504 - 346,880 - 99.00
http://twitter.com/mozilla http://twitter.com/mozilla - 2,044 - 9,943 - 4.86
http://twitter.com/nokia http://twitter.com/nokia - 15,533 - 351,303 - 22.62
http://twitter.com/opera http://twitter.com/opera - 3,529 - 104,859 - 29.71
http://twitter.com/samsung http://twitter.com/samsung - 8,863 - 332,269 - 37.49
http://twitter.com/twitter http://twitter.com/twitter - 1,470 - 14,420,774 - 9,810.05
Excluding Apple, I'm not entirely sure what this measures.
Twitter-ness?
- zegmas 14y agoit's called "social proof", instead of "Twitter-ness"
- pyrotechnick 14y agoDoes "social proof" generally account for gaming? For instance, what if Microsoft chooses not to report spam accounts whilst Apple does? It would be very much related to the rate of retweets as this is primarily how information traverses Twitter. I think the formula is something like trendiness - honesty.