I’ll do this <sarcasm>earth-shattering </sarcasm> analysis in segments as I have ideas or suggestions and time allows. Here’s the first pass…
I do “at” mentions far too often. Formulists pulled a list for me of the top 50 people who have @replied to me in the past year and includes the number of times I have mentioned them. The numbers were wildly differential. Here are a few quick stats;
- The total times I mentioned people was 382 v. was mentioned 720 (53%)
- Person who mentioned me most: @JimStorer with 42 mentions.
- Runner up: @m750 with 40 mentions.
- Person I mentioned the most: @JimStorer with 97 mentions.
- Runner up: @m750 with 56 mentions
- The best ratio was @shakti672, who replied 200% of the time.
- The worst was @Devon, who replied 14% of the time.
I, seemingly, have used Twitter as a conversational tool far more often than other people. Another option is that I simply haven’t been active enough to warrant others mentioning me – either in online or offline methods, or I may just be sharing too much noise / junk / unoriginal content… Or I’m just yelling at clouds.
My takeaway is that people seemingly care less about social mentions and more about the content delivered, so I’ll make a conscious effort to decrease the conversational mentions. My secondary takeaway is that I need to hang out with Jim & Aaron more offline.
10/13 Update – I’m having doubts in the integrity of the data pulled from Formulists, namely since @PeteKuhn is excluded from the list. Pete is a close friend and after I grew suspicious that he wasn’t completely excluded from the Formulists data I manually went through his feed and counted at least 10 instances of mentions where we’ve had conversations via Twitter – enough to put him in the top 10, let alone top 50. This erodes a lot of my confidence in the initial data but I still think it is, directionally, correct. I don’t have any reason to believe Formulists is favoring inbound mentions over outbound mentions, or vice-versa. …yet, anyway.