On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 4:47 AM, horrido <[email protected]> wrote:
> You want to know something funny? Most of the Twitter accounts listed here > show that most tweets are actually retweets. If you subtract the retweets, > the real number of original tweets is quite small, and spread far apart > over > time. > > The *Smalltalk Renaissance* Twitter account has had 16 original tweets in > *one week*. And no retweets at all. > > By this measure, my Twitter account is far more active than anybody else's! > > I'm looking at Marissa Mayer's Twitter account (she's the Yahoo CEO). She's > had 17 tweets over the last 3 months, but 12 of them are retweets! Of > course, she has over 861,000 followers and I only have 11, but I'm a more > active Twit than she is. > > But she has the same impact with a retweet than with an "original" tweet. Doesn't she? She touches 861 thousand people... I don't want to dispute, but I'd like to understand what is it to learn from your statement... - is a retweet less important than an "original" tweet? I never thought so... I follow somebody if his/her tweets (retweets or not) are interesting to me. Also, do not understimate retweets as It means activity in another way. You're reading and following other people and selecting/filtering what is interesting for your followers. That's a lot of effort and thus activity :). - does the amount of followers do not count? I think they do... :/ as with them you have an idea of the impact of a tweet. I mean, this email looks like you're trying to justify what you're doing with some random facts :)... You should do it if you actually feel/believe it, do not look for our approval! This "smalltalk renaissance" thing should not be for us, but for people from outside the community, isn't it? And now I go back to work on my stuff ^^, Guille > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/On-Twitter-tp4797177p4797698.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > >
