The JCPR Twitter Index

20 thoughts on “The JCPR Twitter Index”

1. 

   Chad May 6, 2009 — 1:24 am

   Very interesting post. We’ve actually been having some similar discussions around this topic in relation to search queries. A few weeks back we put up an experimental “Influencers Tool” which takes a first pass at the problem (http://sideline.yahoo.com/influencers). Ultimately, we aim to work this type of metric into Sideline (http://sideline.yahoo.com) based on user feedback.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. Pingback: JCPR Twitter Index « The Seldom Seen Kid
3. 

   LozBot May 6, 2009 — 10:52 am

   Adam Buxton isn’t even on Twitter anymore!
   And where’s Peter Serafinowicz????

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Louisa May 6, 2009 — 11:14 am

   Since when has Jamie Oliver been a musician as his main job?

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Charlie May 6, 2009 — 11:14 am

   ….and Jane Goldman is not just Jonathan Ross’s wife, she is a writer, and Rainn Wilson is not a musician he is an actor from The Office an American Workplace.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Jonny Bentwood May 6, 2009 — 11:37 am

   To answer a few of your questions:

   Lozbot – you are right Adam Buxton left a few days ago after this blog post was written. In the next version, you will see him removed and many other people jump up (that’s why a ‘velocity index’ is so important.

   Louisa – There are two Jamie Oliver’s (the cheek of it). The second one is a musician from the Lostprophets (one word …I checked) and not the same one that makes pucka food for Sainsbury’s)

   Charlie – Will update Jane and Rainn’s profile – thanks for the post. We try and keep this as up-to-date as possible.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Jonny Bentwood May 6, 2009 — 11:40 am

   And where’s Peter Serafinowicz????

   We used several lists of top celeb tweeters/twitterers?, there will always be people left out but we will makes sure Peter and anyone else that people think should be included will make the list next time.

   Perhaps the bigger questions is – ‘just who is a celebrity’ – but that is for another blog post 🙂

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Idiotwithamission May 6, 2009 — 1:54 pm

   Who really gives a shit? This is so silly as to beg the question? Are you two so fucking bored out of your minds that this is all you could come up with?

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. (Post author)

   David Brain May 6, 2009 — 2:36 pm

   Idiotwithamission: you mean the knowledge that the meerkat is more influential than Boris doesn’t help you? http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/903654/Meerkat-Alexandr-Orlov-influential-Boris-Johnson-John-Prescott-Hillary-Clinton/

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    zaws May 6, 2009 — 4:03 pm

    …and Warren Ellis is a writer

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    Jonny Bentwood May 6, 2009 — 4:15 pm

    Thanks Zaws – will update the list to reflect this

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    timhoang May 6, 2009 — 6:15 pm

    Can of worms…

    Ironically, I went to a SEO workshop today and the number 1 link baiting tool was lists. At the time of writing you’ve been mentioned 407 times on the Web and you are the top Google news result when the search term “Twitter” is used – congrats on your own PR.

    I’m still unsure about the influence of Twitter and people on Twitter. I know its definitely something to consider as part of Pr campaigns but apart from that I’m a bit stuck. However, your list and methodology goes much further than most to calculate influence.

    Thankfully you didn’t mention any of the social media folk here in the UK or you would be getting so much abuse 🙂

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. Pingback: Cool stuff i’ve been reading from April 9th to May 6th | blending the mix
14. (Post author)

    David Brain May 7, 2009 — 9:11 am

    Tim,

    We are used to abuse. Look the fact is people love and hate lists. But beyond the noise there is a methodology here and actually three types of ranking. If you think that this was about link baiting then you have spent way too much time in those SEO sessions and are developing a paranoia. We are not even being definititive or trying to narrow down a debate but we are suggesting that to come to any conclusion on a person’s power/influence/engagement/popularity, call it what you will, that you have to make a series of small value calls that add up to one big value call. That’s what our formula tries to do. And for heavens sake Tim, you work for a PR company in the PR industry so please don’t get sniffy about the fact that this got talked about. Yes we are happy about that, but we are also looking to people to comment on the formula and the weighting. Have a look at that mate and give us your view. Genuinely we want it. And as for mentioning the “social media folk” here in the UK and their abuse…..I really could not give a toss. I think some people pay way too much attention to what a few elitist, self referencing, self appointed and shrill commentators think.

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    timhoang May 7, 2009 — 10:51 am

    Hi David, Apologies, it looks like I’ve criticised you guys at Edelman for the list but I didn’t. I think it won’t do you any harm in the search engines and its making people talk about you and your list – which is certainly not a bad thing.

    I think the way you have calculated influence (as explained on Jonny’s post) is thorough but by covering something as intangible as “influence” there are bound to be arguments and criticisms. The one thing that is difficult to track is the quality of content of each tweet. However, I suppose the quality can be measured by the number of retweets and responses?

    I like the fact that you’ve used Twinfluence in your methodology (I haven’t used it before and only now realised that it basically measures what we and people who have read up on social network analyst call “inbetweeness”). I’m not sure what your weighting is for this but you mentioned in your post that it would be given “a lower weighting”. I think inbetweeness should be weighted more highly as that person may not have a huge number of followers but is vital for messages to be passed between groups (have a look here: http://www.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/SI110/readings/In_Out_and_Beyond/Granovetter.pdf for more info on the Strength of weak ties).

    Again the main thing about the methodology is the weighting. It looks like you have covered all bases, although there seems to be a bit of an overlap between tools used to assess influence – Twitter Grader being the one that sticks out and overlaps already with a lot of the criteria you are already using. However, again this can all be solved by how you’ve weighted it – can you tell us exactly how you’ve done this so we can try it with our networks?

    Having previously said that you shouldn’t use the UK social media folk in the list, I would actually be interested in applying your methodology to say the Top 10 PR Week or Wadds’ list. These are the people who influence me to read and try new things so I would be interested to see where, say Neville Hobson or Wadds rank. (I know Jonny mentioned he was creating an analyst list which should be quite interesting).

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    Jonny Bentwood May 7, 2009 — 3:14 pm

    Thanks Tim for some great points. I’d like to respond to each point in turn…

    The one thing that is difficult to track is the quality of content of each tweet. However, I suppose the quality can be measured by the number of retweets and responses?

    These areas are covered by 2 metrics. Twitalyzer’s noise to signal ratio and Edelman’s own Involvement Index. Both these variables aim to look at the type of tweet someone makes, its relevance, noise and engagement.

    it basically measures what we and people who have read up on social network analyst call “inbetweeness”. I’m not sure what your weighting is for this but you mentioned in your post that it would be given “a lower weighting”

    Absolutely – even though we have focussed in the larger list on ‘influence’, the smaller version has a weighting I have called engagement – which could also be termed inbetweeness.
    The reason why I have given the automated tools a lower weighting is that I didn’t want to double count. Edelman’s own ‘Involvement Index’ is far more transparent to me and gives me a greater degree of confidence that the number I have assigned is fairer. This variable has been given a higher weighting – but you are right in that this particular part is incredibly important which is why it has been given such emphasis in the final score.

    can you tell us how you’ve weighted it – can you tell us exactly how you’ve done this so we can try it with our networks?

    This is Edelman/JCPR IP. However, we did speak to many ‘knowledgeable’ people in the community before finalising our weighting to ensure that it was a fair system. I believe the results justify that the weighting does seem to work – although I am always happy to hear how it can be improved.

    I would actually be interested in applying your methodology to say the Top 10 PR Week or Wadds’ list.

    I am hoping that this methodology can be applied to any segment of people – from PR folk in the UK, to politicians, techies, analysts, healthcare pros etc. Now that we have the formula, we can use this to any group of people.

    Thanks again for your time to make such a detailed comment, I hope this answers your questions clearly. If not, ask again and I will let you know my thoughts.

    LikeLike

    Reply
17. Pingback: Social network analysis and PR « Much ado about nowt
18. Pingback: Wossy Dusts Downing Street, at Least on Twitter
19. Pingback: The Evolution of Formulas to determine Social Media Influence « Jennifer Lindsay Digital
20. Pingback: Social Media Analytics Italia » L’evoluzione delle metriche di misurazione