The Golden Tweet Ratio
I recently read an article published on NYMag.com about the coveted tweet ratio (fair warning: the article focuses on politics). The tweet ratio is a Twitter phenomenon wherein a tweet is judged on its merit by the ratio of replies to likes/retweets. Internet lore claims that the 'worse' a tweet is, the more replies it will have, due to the fact that if users enjoy/agree with a tweet, they will merely retweet or like it instead of taking the time to reply.
I've seen many, many jokes made about the ratio in response to questionable tweets from brand accounts, celebrities, and politicians, and it has piqued my interest. The Golden Tweet Ratio is often approached with a humorous lens, but the fact that it has become popular across Twitter and internet pop culture is fascinating to me as I think it sheds light on several 'internet behaviors' if you will.
First off, it's illustrative of the 'prosumers' of Web 2.0. Users interacting with tweets and writing replies are examples of that collaboration and ongoing interaction that Web 2.0 is known for. The ratio explanation seeks, in its own pop culture way, to sort Twitter behaviors (liking/retweeting/replying) into categories based on a range of human emotion.
One example can be viewed here, in an article explaining more about the ratio and the data used in the NYMage article and focuses on the United Airlines tweets in response to their removal of a passenger on one of their flights. Many people were outraged by the PR response to the passenger incident and so they replied to the tweet (mostly aggrieved responses) to let United know they were displeased. The tweets during the time of that incident have replies in the tens of thousands, as opposed to fractional likes.
I wonder though if assuming a tweet is inherently 'bad' because it has created discourse, as the article alleges, is a bit reductive in terms of the dialogue that online interaction can create. I think there is a fine line here, and as with many things, there are exceptions to the rule of this Ratio. Controversial subjects, politics, and sports tweets are far more likely to spark outrage/replies than users tweeting about mundane or 'safer' subjects, which would throw 'the science' idea behind The Ratio off, as it doesn't account for content nor popularity of the tweet author. It also appears there can be something of a mob mentality surrounding The Ratio and replies seem to grow in number as the tweet circulates, much like the snowball effect.
What are your thoughts about the Golden Tweet Ratio? Just some internet malarky or an explanation for a digital phenomenon?
I've seen many, many jokes made about the ratio in response to questionable tweets from brand accounts, celebrities, and politicians, and it has piqued my interest. The Golden Tweet Ratio is often approached with a humorous lens, but the fact that it has become popular across Twitter and internet pop culture is fascinating to me as I think it sheds light on several 'internet behaviors' if you will.
First off, it's illustrative of the 'prosumers' of Web 2.0. Users interacting with tweets and writing replies are examples of that collaboration and ongoing interaction that Web 2.0 is known for. The ratio explanation seeks, in its own pop culture way, to sort Twitter behaviors (liking/retweeting/replying) into categories based on a range of human emotion.
One example can be viewed here, in an article explaining more about the ratio and the data used in the NYMage article and focuses on the United Airlines tweets in response to their removal of a passenger on one of their flights. Many people were outraged by the PR response to the passenger incident and so they replied to the tweet (mostly aggrieved responses) to let United know they were displeased. The tweets during the time of that incident have replies in the tens of thousands, as opposed to fractional likes.
I wonder though if assuming a tweet is inherently 'bad' because it has created discourse, as the article alleges, is a bit reductive in terms of the dialogue that online interaction can create. I think there is a fine line here, and as with many things, there are exceptions to the rule of this Ratio. Controversial subjects, politics, and sports tweets are far more likely to spark outrage/replies than users tweeting about mundane or 'safer' subjects, which would throw 'the science' idea behind The Ratio off, as it doesn't account for content nor popularity of the tweet author. It also appears there can be something of a mob mentality surrounding The Ratio and replies seem to grow in number as the tweet circulates, much like the snowball effect.
What are your thoughts about the Golden Tweet Ratio? Just some internet malarky or an explanation for a digital phenomenon?
The title of the article made me laugh out loud. Having been minimally involved in Twitter, I wasn't aware of the "good" and "bad" tweet distinction. I think the misleading thing is the interpretation of retweets as "good" tweets, unless you're operating on the assumption that any publicity is good publicity. I know people who retweet certain politicians to say, "look at this idiot."
ReplyDeleteTwitter has its uses, but I'm still not convinced it is a great place for education. To be honest, I've found it to be kind of a toxic environment.