• I think most people are too self-involved to follow status updates of hundreds or thousands of people. Personally I have made a few lists of the people whose tweets I want to see, and I follow those lists. Beyond that I only really look at my replies.

    • I do try to take the time to breeze through the stream a few times every day just to get a pulse on my community, and respond to a few other folks tweets and ideas. I know a lot of people love lists, too. For me, it’s important to listen to and participate with my community, even at this cursory level.

  • Geoff

    Great article – thanks for sharing insights from the data. I think that the first chart is the most interesting for me.

    The first chart is really intersting, but I think that it is missing one key piece of information – how often those people are Tweeting. I’d love to know the gap between how often people post and how often they stop in and listen…..

  • Point #3 I have been following and participating in on occasion and I find it fascinating the way this community really pushes the limits of snark, but they are really pushing forward on connectedness. The hashtag snowball is really quite intriguing how connected this community is.

    • It’s an interesting observation about pushing the line. I love this new development. It’s awesome and makes me rethink the way I consider Twitter.

  • It is curious that what Pew calls “checking for material posted by others” you call “listening.”

    I equate the latter with reading your replies and running keyword searches for your name and your products etc (for those who don’t know you exist so don’t @ you).

    I equate the former to only what other people write, following the messages of people you follow.

    • And reading other people’s tweets is not paying attention to them, i.e. listening to them? After reading the definition of listening in the dictionary ( before I responded to your comment, I have to say that I find the semantic splicing here to be argumentative for the sake of argument.

      • Argumentative for the sake of argument? Why substitute Pew’s language for your singular word, “listening,” then? Is that not argumentative in itself?

    • Am I correct in understanding, Ari, that vanity searching and listening are the same behavior in your eyes?

      • Yes, Helen, I am.

        Social media monitoring tools are social media listening tools, evident by recent industry headlines such as

        By your question, do you suggest listening is not vain?

        • Well, I check for material posted by others on the radio a lot. I check for material posted by others to my son when he needs someone to talk to. In fact, I think I’ll shut up and and check for material posted by others now.

          Actually, never mind. What are words for, when no one checks for materials posted by others anymore?

          In other words, Ari, you keep using that word, but I think it means what you do not think it means.

          • Helen, “listening” is not my word. I merely echo what others say. By your logic, Mashable and Dell use it wrong too.

            Let’s make an analogy. Suppose you’re in a room of strangers, a cocktail party. You’re talking to someone, drinking a wine, whatever. Someone mentions your name but you don’t know who said it, so you cock your ears and turn around to gauge the direction of that voice. That’s listening.

            But when people talk and don’t mention your name, you’re not listening. You’re merely hearing.

            I’d rather call something by the word that describes it than make up other words, which is the basis of my argument with Geoff’s use of listening when Pew didn’t use it.

        • I don’t know that I would cite Mashable as a style-guide.

          Additionally, I would posit that *much* of the language we use with regard to Social Media is misleading, and creates unintentional misunderstandings.

          I’m still not comfortable with the word “Conversation” as it is commonly used in Social Media. I think you’ll find that these Pew results bear that out, as we have a LOT of bi-directional publishing, but not a great deal of Conversation.

          • Great, Ike, now I will have to rethink my “conversations happen across as well as down” approach to “listening” on the web.

  • So, um, how about those Phillies? Anyone placing bets against (Mwa hah hah)?

  • Pingback:The Marketess » An Impression is not an Impression Unless it Makes One

    […] morning I read a post on Geoff Livingston’s blog that shows that about half of Twitter users read other people’s tweets less than weekly.  […]

  • Honestly these infographics don’t display facts and are often misleading as this one.

  • Geoff–Thank you for highlighting these points about Twitter. Depending on whose data, you assess, take-aways may vary.

    According to Twitter’s Year in Tweets, top topics were hot news, soccer & entertainment. Further, most retweeted tweets were all around entertainment. Interestingly, Stephen Colbert’s humorous twist on the BP Oil Spill was most retweeted tweet by almost 50%.

    Sysomos data shows increase in number of followers,etc. Also, most of Twitter growth outside of US. (This is consistent with Top Twitter Trends, 3 are about soccer.

    Happy marketing,
    Heidi Cohen

  • Pingback:Five for Friday Christmas Edition

    […] 3 New knowledge layers about Twitter – This is a great post from Geoff Livingston on some interesting facts about Twitter. While it should not surprise me, I am still open-jawed when I see the statistic of 48 percent of users checking in less than once a week. […]

Comments are closed