alexmanchester.com

Do you know who these Twits are?

Twitter is amazing. No doubt about it. I've said before I think it's one of the most incredible communication tools and services ever created, and I think it's here to stay, in one form or another:

There is no doubt (and there really hasn't been for some time) that, as a method of getting the most up to date information in the fastest way possible, Twitter is a game changer - a paradigm shift truly deserving of the [overused] expression.

But there is one aspect of Twitter that's becoming more prominent as it grows: do you know the people you're following? And "know" as in, have you met them, or even spoken to them on the phone or via email?

Perhaps you know a few of those you're following and of those who follow you, but it's almost guaranteed to be a smaller percentage than those you don't know, or have never even spoken to or heard of before in your life.

This is one of Twitter's greatests strengths. It's one of the greatest examples of the network effect ever witnessed. We're building weak ties, increasing numbers of niche networks that grow, collapse and reform like waves hitting the beach. We're sharing knowledge, links, news, experience, locations and we're empathetic, sympathetic, critical, praising and questioning of people we know, but also that we don't know and will very unlikely ever meet.

And then there's the question, if you did meet someone from your Twitter feed whom you didn't "know", just "followed", would you even know it? If I walked past you down the street, there's every chance you wouldn't have a clue, and I wouldn't know you, either.

I don't know why, and it seems I shouldn't think much of it, but it does seem... odd.

What are are the top 10 factors when implementing Twitter in your organisation?

Yesterday at their two-day intensive workshop (day two is today), the Intranet Leadership Forum's Canberra chapter debated on Twitter. You can check out Tweets from the day and today's proceedings, using the #CanberraILF Twitter stream/tag.

Peter Richards, Tabcorp Intranet manager and Sydney ILF member, has posted a great summary of the Twitter debate seen via Twitter itself, and it seems the "Against" team came out slightly ahead of the "For" team.

As Peter has done the work summarising the debate, it's best you head to his blog to read it! Peter is also right about one thing - the ability to follow proceedings of events like this workshop is fantastic.

My collegues Catherine and Rebecca, who were hosting the event, said it was a great day and very lively. There's a good chance we'll look at a similar session during the Sydney event in November.

Check out: #CanberraILF and also Step Two Designs on Twitter.

_________

Plus, what is the Intranet Leadership Forum?

The Intranet Leadership Forum is the professional community for intranet managers and teams throughout Australia.

To find out more and join our growing community (we offer multi-level memberships for businesses and individuals), visit the Intranet Leadership Forum website or download the brochure (PDF) here.

Twitter guidelines from a local Council

Mosman Council has taken the progressive and bold step to officially use Twitter, and at the same time offer some very clear and useful summary information and guidelines on the service itself.

I say this is both progressive and bold because Government agencies can often be very worried and fearful about participating on the Web in this way (and in social media in general), and it's great to see such steps taken.

In contrast, I know of one or two other local councils that have unnofficial accounts and it makes you feel like they're missing a trick, especially as Twitter becomes more popular and it begins to permeate all aspects of the web and online communications.

From Mosman's Web page:

Our aim is to inform constituents of what’s happening in Mosman.

• Our Twitter channel supplements the information we publish on our website.
• We can remind you of important events and alert you to late-breaking news.
• We can link to interesting and useful information about Mosman published by other people.
• We can better communicate with those using mobile devices.
• But we’re also aware of the changing nature of communication on the internet and our use of this channel will be influenced by your participation and response to it.

That last sentence is a really nice way to approach things.

At the time of writing, the most recent Mosman Council tweet is regarding a new and predictably unpopular scheme to charge for beachside parking at Balmoral (one of the most serene and picturesque places on the Harbour). The post refers people directly to the official statement on the decision. Not hard, but a tangible response.

@mosmancouncil

[via Craig Thomer (@craigthomler), whose blog and Twitter feed I recommend, especially if you're involved with government, communications and intranets.]

5 major problems killing Twitter?

Toby Ward has written about some of the problems facing Twitter at the moment, including over capacity and the more frequent sightings of the "fail whale", the lack of revenue models, poor search, and the increasing amount of crap:

"Its becoming increasingly difficult to filter out the crap, and the fly-by-night Tweet spammers. My favorite of course are the Twitter wanna-be types who follow as many people as they can come across only to quickly unfollow them in an attempt to massage their egos by building a follower base. While Twitter certainly doesn't force me to follow anyone it would be nice to avoid repeated emails from the “internetmarketer” who repeatedly follows and unfollows me (I'm sure he and his partner in the Nigerian Ministry of Finance offer superlative, sage advice)."

I don't necessarily agree that those points are killing Twitter but they are problems for many, and as the likes of Ashton Kutcher get a million followers and Oprah joins the "masses" (yet the service still has less than 20 million users), they could become more significant down the line.

In spite of its issues, Twitter remains a unique service and one that continues to surprise and amaze. Not only that, but the rapid growth and the epic media coverage its currently experiencing are as significant factors in Twitter's evolution as they are in affecting its operational smoothness. There's no telling where the story will go from one week to the next. What will Twitter be like as and when it doubles and quadruples in size to 50 or 100 million users?

Social media, marketing, collaboration and intranets at Intel Corp.

Jeremy Schultz, Intranet communicator at Intel, posted a ZDNet article link earlier on the company's use of social media. Of specific interest is the social media and collaboration work they've done on the intranet (page 3 of the article):

Internal Collaboration: Intel has a robust community of employees who collaborate internally using social tools such as Intelpedia (internal Wikipedia site launched in 2005), internal blogs, and internal micro blogging tools that closely resemble Twitter. There are hundreds of blog posts each month, many garnering equal numbers of views and comments. Intel recently migrated its internal community infrastructure onto a platform that affords employees greater ability to collaborate through a tool that resembles an internal Facebook platform.

Infrastructure & Training: Last year, Intel created its external social media guidelines. The company also created a company-wide Social Media Center of Excellence that focuses on helping the company adopt social media broadly. This group created an extensive training program for employees on digital marketing, including social media.

Twitter: Intel has nearly 150 different Twitterers (groups & people who Tweet for Intel) and that number is growing every day. They’re directly engaging with consumers, customers, developers, partners and others.

Intel Blogs: Launched a few years ago there are now there are over a dozen different Intel blogs featuring posts from Intel technology experts, executives, and Intel Fellows sharing their expertise and engaging with customers, partners and consumers.

External Collaboration: In mid-2008, Intel formed the Intel Insiders, a social media advisory team of a diverse group of social media and networking pioneers. The group helps advise Intel on how to better connect with online audiences interested in technology innovation. They’re not paid, but Intel does provide them with a variety of products (some on loan, some to keep) to use and provide feedback on. We also bring them to key events where Intel is present.

Read the full article for more, it's well worth the time to learn about a combined, external-internal social media strategy.

One thing that does stand out, in an organisation of 80,000 people, I bet there are more than 150 people actually Twittering, but perhaps that figure is 150 with an official "Intel" in their bio.

The race for a million Twitter followers, Ashton Kutcher's influence and Hugh Jackman's Twitter gaffe

Venturebeat's MG Seigler has written an article on, "Who will be the first to a million followers on Twitter?".

CNN Breaking News, Britney Spears and Ashton Kutcher all now have over 750,000 followers. That's quite incredible and when you think that each message they post goes out 750,000 times, it puts into perspective how hard Twitter's often berated servers must be working just serving those three users (who pay nothing for it, incidentally).

What Venturebeat also mention is influence on Twitter. With an estimated 8-10 million unique users, the person or company who gets to a million followers first will have "influence" over 10% of the entire network. I don't believe "influence" is the right word here - "reach" may be more appropriate - but either way, reaching 10% of any multi-million-user social network is remarkable on figures alone. (See earlier posts on Twitter influence here.)

Ghost writer
Another semi-interesting story on Twitter yesterday was Hugh Jackman's gaffe, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Spot the mistake? Jackman calls the world famous Opera House the Opera Center (and "Centre" with an -er, no less).

Of course, the Aussie actor knows full well it's the Opera House, but apparently the assistant who does his ghost writing for him on Twitter did not. Oops. Maybe time for an iPhone and Twitterfon, eh Mr. Wolverine?

Huge blackout in Sydney - Twitter coverage trounces mainstream media (and Facebook)

The power has just come back on after what was the biggest blackout I've witnessed since the 1987 hurricane in England.

Stretching across the Sydney CBD and into the Eastern Suburbs, over 70,000 people were affected for almost two hours. Not long, but long enough to see several thousand messages on Twitter, as people updated the service with commentary and no small dose of internet humour.

The blackout coverage on Twitter has been electrifying (pun pun) and was, once again, amazingly helpful in quickly understanding the size and scope of the incident, where it may have originated from, and where and when power started to come back on. It was useful and responsive (and entertaining) in a way that traditional channels and mainstream media simply never could be.

Indeed, the fastest response to the blackout was by News.com.au, which posted a link (see below, click to enlarge) to the Twitter #blackout search page (see above), upon which the tags #blackout, #sydney and, hilariously, #zombies rapidly became the most popular trending topics.

There is no doubt (and there really hasn't been for some time) that, as a method of getting the most up to date information in the fastest way possible, Twitter is a game changer - a paradigm shift truly deserving of the [overused] expression.

And Facebook - please take note. Even if there are some Silicon Valley people (Scoble, Arrington) who think your latest Twitter-style redesign mess is a stroke of visionary, world-leading brilliance, there's no way you can compete in this type of scenario.

Twitter users - poles apart

Two posts within minutes of each other.

Super Twitter

Last week's introduction of @the_real_shaq, this week's #osnbc conference, a semi-chance meeting with @getbiglittlekid, and today's terrible events in #mumbai have reinforced to me that Twitter is the most versatile, dynamic, and amazing web application I have ever used.

As a method of putting people, news and events right in front of my eyes it's astounding, and makes any other content and information delivery system look positively archaic. Even Google.

This Twitter Influence list is a waste of time

influence |ˈinfloŏəns|
noun: A person or thing with such a capacity or power

Much has been made this past week of Shifted Pixels' Top 100 most influential Australian Twitterers. It's a praiseworthy exercise undertaken at a time when Twitter is exploding in popularity. Prominent politicians are now using it in droves, even Britney Spears is getting in on the act, and these Twitter-focused stories are making the front pages of newspapers and news sites across the world.

The problem is that this list is fatally flawed.

Twitter itself is becoming a societal pulse for people who spend a vast amount of time plugged into the web (and the phrase "online" is also becoming less relevant as people are continuously connected). Given that the web is becoming the defacto platform for practically anything and everything, you could argue that Twitter is becoming a societal pulse - full stop.

Subsequently in terms of influence, yes, Twitter itself is becoming massively influential, allowing people to virtually flashmob news and events that are then covered in detail and by dozens or hundreds of people, and all manner of conversations and exchanges are taking place at any one time. These and other ways in which Twitter is being used are absolutely fascinating to observe and participate in. The ebb and flow of conversation is epic (there's a book begging to be written sometime soon).

And yet, as clear as Twitter's rise as a service is becoming, determining an individual's influence on Twitter is not so easy to do, and certainly not something you can do with a simple and seemingly ham-fisted calculation: TwitterRank = (Following / 10) + (Followers) + (Updates/100).

Any possible way of measuring a person's influence would, with the information immediately available, have to start with the number of people following that person.

Agreed.

People follow other people because there's a stab of common interest, of information that's useful or of value between for those two people. Based on my own experience the levels or relevancy are numerous, complex, and can change on a daily basis.

But, the number of updates a person has posted and the number of people a person is following themselves? These two pieces of data are irrelevant in the context of determining influence, meaning that 2/3 of the factors used in the calculation that are irrelevant, which in turn makes the calculation fundamentally flawed.

Let me say that again slightly differently: the number of updates someone has posted and the number of people they're following bears no significance on their influence whatsoever.

Perhaps as a measure of an individual's own activity, this calculation would be valid, but I can still see no reason to slash certain aspects of the data by 90%.

The problem with using personal activity data is simple: It's blindingly obvious that you could game this system for the number of people you follow and the number of posts you create.

At best, the calculation in question produces mildly indicative results of influence, but only early on before people start messing with it. (This is why lots of recognisably influential people are in the list to some degree).

To make headway in truly determining who influential Twitterers are (and truth be told I'm not ultimately sure it's going to work in itself), we have to look at who is being influential. That is, who is generating and leading discussion.

Again, the best starting representation here is the number of people following you. A further indicator would be how many @replies you have against your name from other people (not how many you write yourself). This data, while not immediately visible, is available. What this would indicate is how much conversation your activity produces - surely a far more worthy indicator of influence when considering a social network. 

Harder but very useful data to have standalone or as part of a calculation would also be the number of links posted by someone, multiplied by the number of hits on that link (including photos etc). Twitpic offers hit stats on posted images, for example.

You could further build on this by seeing when and where the growth in followers and conversation occurred for particular people. For example, was it a particular event where someone grabbed the attention, or did they generate a whole new discussion. Ross Dawson's Future of Media event springs to mind. I wouldn't mind betting that people like Chris Saad got a whole host of new followers after that event.

All of this data represents and allows you to measure the activity generated by the person - "the ripples" they create - not their own personal activity. That's a vital distinction to make.

Anecdotally, the most influential local person (so that's discounting @BarackObama!) I've seen and followed on Twitter is Mark Pesce (@mpesce). Here's a guy who seemingly increased the viewing figures and visibility of his TV show (New Inventors) through Twitter.

Another influential guy in all those that I personally follow is Stephen Collins (@trib), who led me to people like Pesce, @Kcarruthers, @Stilgherrian and many more. These are people who lots of other people visibly follow.

A proper social network analysis using incremental data from Twitter would be amazing in determining true influence but that data would be hard to come by and, I expect, impossibly dense (it would probably require tracking "@newfollower is now following you" emails sent out by Twitter's servers).

Also notice the fact that the above is in my sphere, meaning influence on Twitter, while broadly measurable, is actually pretty subjective and will become increasingly subjective as use of the service grows beyond the web/tech/media areas of online discussion. Twitter Influence cannot be periodically conclusive in the way the "Top 100 rich list" is.

This discussion on influence seems to be an important one given Twitter's happening mainstream breakthrough, so it's great to see the discussion get going. But determining influence via the method used so far is, to put it simply, a waste of time.