Buffer
Diggin' this content? Sign up for updates... it's FREE!
  • Pingback: Social Media Online Activity – the 5 biggies | Diana Soloman VA

  • http://timothybertowen.com/interviews/ Tim Owen

    Hei from the fjord,

    What does Influence have to do with Trust and Confidence I wonder?

    Thank you for this article and video where I first discovered it.

    All our love to you and yours Bernardo and Jeff from you friends in Norway!

  • http://www.twitter.com/cynthiay29 Cynthia Yildirim

    Interesting going over the list, I am so impressed with Smashing Magazine’s quick rise in social media. First heard of them on Stumbleupon and where they are also active. It’s a great site. RWW also a great site and never disappoint, no wonder it made the top 10 list, and Mashable is the king of social media so they really deserve to be there. Aplusk took Twitter by storm and quickly merged into the community gaining respect for quality tweeting and because he is very creative also. Breakingnews I would imagine use to be higher on the list, but I think have recently not been as breaking as they use to be, but they can recover. Google of course deserves to be there, they are merging into our lives.

    Great post, I enjoyed it.

  • http://www.essentialu.typepad.com Kayla @EssentialU

    Interesting to see how the number of followers didn’t dictate what number each of the top ten were listed as.

  • eric

    it’s important to understand the limitations of this “IP” score. It doesn’t seem to me (based on my first read of the paper) to be a measure of total influence — i.e., Smashing Magazine is not literally the 6th most influential stream on Twitter, it’s just got the 6th highest IP quotient, given the factors used to calculate IP quotient for this study.

    I.e., this is a first step. There’s not an applicable marketing metric, here, yet.

    Also notable: This only tracks link sharing. It totally ignores idea propagation that doesn’t involve link sharing (and there’s a lot of that on Twitter). Not sure why that was excluded.

  • eric

    Also, ‘passivity’ is a very poor term to use for what they’re measuring, which is the degree to which people are or are not influenced. That’s not passivity; ‘inertia’ is closer to the mark, but still not quite there.

  • Pingback: 7 razones por las cuales el email todavía pega fuerte en las Relaciones Públicas y 3 reglas para usarlo bien (2) « ReputationLab

  • Bert

    This study is more than a year old and Twitter has grown quite a bit since then. I’m not sure if the numbers in this study are still valid.

  • http://twitter.com/unwrittenbook malika bourne

    Well, I thought the post was quite interesting. thanks

  • mika

    I was looking to find answers on this particular topic and your Blog came up first on Google search but I can’t find anything on this page that is even slightly related to what I need

  • mika

    like looking through your posts

    Also, thanks for permitting me to comment!