Post by Queen of the Damned on Aug 14, 2009 19:12:36 GMT -5
Study finds most Twitter posts 'Pointless Babble'
An analysis of Twitter’s tweets misses the point on what’s pointless
By Helen A.S. Popkin
msnbc.com
updated 8:50 a.m. ET, Fri., Aug 14, 2009
This just in: 40.55 percent of Twitter tweets are “Pointless Babble.”
This stop-the-presses study comes fresh from Pear Analytics, a data provider that recently examined 2,000 tweets over a two-week period, breaking them down into six categories: News, Spam, Self-Promotion, Conversational, Pass-Along Value, and of course, the big winner (and name of my new spoken-word MP3 available soon on Audible.com), “Pointless Babble.”
I’m calling “Shenanigans” on this white paper, but not for the obvious reasons … which are myriad. Sure, Pear Analytics has the numbers to back up this seemingly obvious observation. Yet a cursory scan of the accompanying white paper suggests that this Twitter proclamation is just as subjective as Morgan Stanley’s recent “study” revealing that teens aren’t using Twitter — a study compiled by a 15-year-old intern polling his circle of friends.
What I’m saying here is, both the info babble and teen-free Twitter info are fairly obvious observations. But where is the science? What is the criterion? As any eBay veteran knows, one dude’s broken Oscar Goldman action figure with exploding briefcase accessory (missing) is another loser’s childhood dream (almost) fulfilled.
When it comes to Pear Analytics' premise of criteria, I disagree. Take for example, the seemingly random (and possibly psychotic) babble cited by Valleywag on this same topic, in a post titled “Psychos Are the Most Interesting Things on Twitter.”
Valleywag points to the anonymous "Bloggess;" a Houston Chronicle columnist flummoxed by William Shatner blocking her Twitter account, following a series of awesome posts such as, “Dear @williamshatner: I need you to come to my house to save my marriage. No sex involved.” And later, “Dear @williamshatner. Please ignore my last several tweets. I’m a little drunk. And dangerously close to paying too much for travel.”
See? Random and/or pointless babble can be funny as all heck and tarnation, and that’s hardly “pointless.” Meanwhile, self-promotion can actually come wrapped in value-added information.
Take, for example this tweet that popped up in my own personal feed earlier this week, from @denverartsygal “2 Simple Diet Rules To Obey. Mother of 2 Loses 43 lbs in 30 Days Following 2 Simple Diet Rules.”
OK, maybe not that one. But check this out, a tweet FROM a news agency, linking to itself (Promotion) with information of “Pass-Along Value”: from @ktvl “Adopt a lap-sized blue heeler: Pongo is one of the best of a litter of rescued animals from Califo. bit.ly/xypwN #news
An analysis of Twitter’s tweets misses the point on what’s pointless
By Helen A.S. Popkin
msnbc.com
updated 8:50 a.m. ET, Fri., Aug 14, 2009
This just in: 40.55 percent of Twitter tweets are “Pointless Babble.”
This stop-the-presses study comes fresh from Pear Analytics, a data provider that recently examined 2,000 tweets over a two-week period, breaking them down into six categories: News, Spam, Self-Promotion, Conversational, Pass-Along Value, and of course, the big winner (and name of my new spoken-word MP3 available soon on Audible.com), “Pointless Babble.”
I’m calling “Shenanigans” on this white paper, but not for the obvious reasons … which are myriad. Sure, Pear Analytics has the numbers to back up this seemingly obvious observation. Yet a cursory scan of the accompanying white paper suggests that this Twitter proclamation is just as subjective as Morgan Stanley’s recent “study” revealing that teens aren’t using Twitter — a study compiled by a 15-year-old intern polling his circle of friends.
What I’m saying here is, both the info babble and teen-free Twitter info are fairly obvious observations. But where is the science? What is the criterion? As any eBay veteran knows, one dude’s broken Oscar Goldman action figure with exploding briefcase accessory (missing) is another loser’s childhood dream (almost) fulfilled.
When it comes to Pear Analytics' premise of criteria, I disagree. Take for example, the seemingly random (and possibly psychotic) babble cited by Valleywag on this same topic, in a post titled “Psychos Are the Most Interesting Things on Twitter.”
Valleywag points to the anonymous "Bloggess;" a Houston Chronicle columnist flummoxed by William Shatner blocking her Twitter account, following a series of awesome posts such as, “Dear @williamshatner: I need you to come to my house to save my marriage. No sex involved.” And later, “Dear @williamshatner. Please ignore my last several tweets. I’m a little drunk. And dangerously close to paying too much for travel.”
See? Random and/or pointless babble can be funny as all heck and tarnation, and that’s hardly “pointless.” Meanwhile, self-promotion can actually come wrapped in value-added information.
Take, for example this tweet that popped up in my own personal feed earlier this week, from @denverartsygal “2 Simple Diet Rules To Obey. Mother of 2 Loses 43 lbs in 30 Days Following 2 Simple Diet Rules.”
OK, maybe not that one. But check this out, a tweet FROM a news agency, linking to itself (Promotion) with information of “Pass-Along Value”: from @ktvl “Adopt a lap-sized blue heeler: Pongo is one of the best of a litter of rescued animals from Califo. bit.ly/xypwN #news
