Scoble and The Twitterized Conversational Index

Scoble is suggesting there is a secret to Twitter, kind of ju jitsu that works against the momentum in the system:

[from The Secret To Twitter]

I’ve gone through stages with Twitter. At some point I thought it was important to get lots of followers. But lately I’ve been telling people that the secret to Twitter isn’t how many followers you have, but how many people you are following.

Scoble makes the argument that following others makes you a better listener, and therefore made smarter through the social involvement. He also suggests that having followers is just a measure of popularity.

While I don't think there is a 'secret' to Twitter, I think that Robert is off the centerline here, at least a bit.

I wrote the other day that Twitter is "a party, not a pulpit" -- it's not a good place to proselytize, to endlessly dump 'content' on people, or to shout a message over and over again. And the best party-goers are good conversationalists, who can participate in the give-and-take that makes the best parties fun.

The important metric in Twitter -- as in any other social setting -- is involvement.

One way to judge involvement is the Conversational Index, that I first devised for blogs, but can be reapplied here. The idea of the Index is simply to measure the ratio between your utterances on Twitter and the number of responses to them. This leaves aside the notion of how many people are following you, or how many you are following, which is a completely different and orthogonal issue. Some people may ignore a lot of what streams by, so, although they are 'following' many people, they might not actually read what they say.

I maintain the ration between the number of tweets you create (including replies to others' tweets) and the number of replies you receive is an indicator of your involvement in the world.

If you are widely followed, the replies to what you tweet should go up, and likewise if you say something unusually witty, insightful, or provocative the responses should shift upward. You could attempt to normalize in some way based on the relative number of followers, but in the final analysis, I don't think it matters.

So, heres the formula:

Boyd's Twitterized Conversational Index = (number of replies made by followers / number of tweets)

There is a cascading effect of twittering too, as displayed in the screenshot below, using the new Quotably tool. Here Robert mentioned a party, and I responded as did dozens of others.

Obviously the impact of a tweet like Robert's can't be accurately measured using my crude formula, but it is a simple indicator of someone's involvement in the twittersphere. If you tweet, will they reply?

[Update - 4:25pm:

Interesting comments from Twitter

batterista @stoweboyd I like you're description of Twitter as a party. I often tell others that it's one big cocktail party. http://tinyurl.com/2qm3us. about 5 hours ago from web in reply to stoweboyd

Ain't no party like a Twit-ter party, cuz a Twit-ter party don' stop!

kencamp @stoweboyd I'm far more on your side of the "Secret to Twitter" approach than I am with @scobleizer about 5 hours ago from web in reply to stoweboyd

Tell Robert!

csuspect @stoweboyd I think you make a good point - http://tinyurl.com/2qm3us. Twitter metrics are an interesting nut to analyze. about 5 hours ago from web in reply to stoweboyd

It's actually fairly straightforward, don't you think?

LPT @stoweboyd - read your post responding to @scoblizer - wondering how you keep count of replies since they don't show in stats like DMs? about 5 hours agofrom web in reply to stoweboyd

Someone will have to build a tool, or add it to something like Tweeterboard.

bpedro @stoweboyd So, someone with a Bci=R/P (Boyd's Conversational Index) <1 is a "listener" and someone with a Bci>1 is "talker"? about 5 hours ago from web in reply to stoweboyd

I guess maybe I should flip it.

matto
@stoweboyd while that metric allows certain specific data in Twitter to be measured, I am not sure if the answer truly communicates meaning.
about 6 hours ago from web in reply to stoweboyd

'Truly communicates meaning?'

elsua @stoweboyd is right on the money again:"The important metric in Twitter - as in any other social setting -- is involvement" http://is.gd/2Hi about 6 hours ago from twhirlin reply to stoweboyd

Thanks!

]

Comments

[Paul Chaney]

There are a couple of other angles to consider as well:

1. Assigned credibility. In other words, the more credibility one is considered to have has bearing on the number of replies they will receive to a given tweet. Perhaps another word for credibility might be "respect." The more one is respected, the more responses they could expect. I don't necessarily believe that popularity = credibility either.

2. Level of engagement. I believe that if you are actively engaged in conversations, the greater the likelihood that you'll receive more replies. Let me add to that something Zig Ziglar said: "If you go out looking for friends, you will find them to be scarce. If you go out to be a friend, you will find them plentiful." I think that philosophical mindset will help you increase your Conversation Index as much as anything.