NHS twitter league table
The NHS have certainly noticed the potential of social media and are proactively using this channel to engage with their community. I’ve been following this conversation for a while (under the tag #nhssm).
Anyway, it didn’t take much for me to notice a friendly bit of rivalry between the different trusts to see who was doing best using the TweetLevel scoring system. Without further ado, you’ll find below the current league table – if a name isn’t included that should be then let me know.
Following – Twitter lists the number of people each user follows. The tendency for most celebrities is to only follow a few individuals. The more people that someone follows, there is an increased likelihood of them actively participating in conversations with the community instead of simply broadcasting to it. Following ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 30) that was used as part of the algorithm. Note: Twitter opened its API to TweetLevel so that data could be sourced easily and quickly to benefit the user.
Followers – Twitter lists the number of people that follow each user. Like subscribing to a feed, this is a clear indication of ‘popularity’ as it requires someone to actively request participation. Even though TweetLevel has a ranking of people based upon popularity, it is influence, engagement and trust that is more important. Due to the nature of logarithmic ranges, a change in the number of people that follow someone, such as from 500 – 1000, will give a far higher change in score than a move from 180K – 200K. Following ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 30) that was used as part of the algorithm. Note: Twitter opened its API to TweetLevel so that data could be sourced easily and quickly to benefit the user. Since the initial creation of TweetLevel, we have now been able to incorporate Twitter Lists into this part of the algorithm. Someone’s follower score will increase depending upon the number of times a user is included in a list, the number of people who follow that list and the authority of those people.
Updates – How often does someone update what they are doing. This number is purely objective as it scores someone highly no matter what the content of their post (i.e. how relevant is it). Nevertheless it is assumed that if someone posts frequently but has poor content then their ‘followers’ will decrease. Update ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 30) that was used as part of the algorithm.
Name Pointing – e.g. @name – How many people engage in conversation with a celebrity or point to their name. The clearest way to establish this is to run a search on the number of people who reference @username in a message. This calculation is based upon a one month period combined with a 24 hour period. The number of times this happens is calculated with each range was assigned a number (0 to 30) – again this was then used as part of the algorithm.
Retweets – Has a tweet caused sufficient interest that it is worth re-submitting by others? Despite a great deal of ‘noise’ (i.e. posts that are not relevant or interesting), when someone sees something that is of high interest, their post can be re-tweeted. The clearest way to establish this is to run a search on the number of people who reference RT @username in a message. This calculation is based upon a one month period combined with a 24 hour period. The number of times this happens is calculated with each range was assigned a number (0 to 50) – again this was then used as part of the algorithm.
Twitalyzer – “This is a unique (and online) tool to evaluate the activity of any Twitter user and report on relative influence, signal-to-noise ratio, generosity, velocity, clout, and other useful measures of success in social media.” This 3rd party tool is a useful method to combine automated metrics dependent upon criteria within posts and publicly available numbers. Where tools such as this are available, we incorporate them into the algorithm to achieve a more confident score. Twitalyzer gives users scores from 0 to 100. Ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.
Twitalyzer noise to signal ratio – Signal-to-noise ratio is a measure of the tendency for people to pass information, as opposed to anecdote. Signal can be references to other people (defined by the use of “@” followed by text), links to URLs you can visit (defined by the use of “http://” followed by text), hashtags you can explore and participate with (defined by the use of “#” followed by text), retweets of other people, passing along information (defined by the use of “rt”, “r/t/”, “retweet” or “via”). If you take the sum of these four elements and divide that by the number of updates published, you get the “signal to noise” ratio. Twitalyzer gives users scores from 0 to 100. Ranges were determined (i.e. more than 20, more than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.
Twinfluence Rank – Twinfluence is an automated 3rd party tool that uses APIs to measure influence. For example: “Imagine Twitterer1, who has 10,000 followers – most of which are bots and inactives with no followers of their own. Now imagine Twitterer2, who only has 10 followers – but each of them has 5,000 followers. Who has the most real “influence?” Twitterer2, of course.” As with Twitalyzer, this index uses 3rd party tools to add greater confidence in the overall Twitter score. Similar to the other criteria, ranges were determined (i.e. less than 20, less than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.
Twitter Grader – Twitter Grader is the final automated tool to add greater confidence to the final index. This site creates a score by evaluating a twitter profile. Similar to the other criteria, ranges were determined (i.e. less than 20, less than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.
Involvement Index – The Involvement Index is unique Edelman IP that calculates a score based upon how an individual engages with their community. It is calculated by analysing the content of an individual posts. People who score highest in this category have frequent, relevant, high-quality content that actively involved the twitter community (asking questions, posting links or commenting on discussions) and did not purely consist of broadcasting. Ranges were determined (i.e. less than 20, less than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.
Velocity Index – As more people engage on Twitter, it may become harder to keep activity going. The velocity index measures changes on a regular basis and assigns a score based on increased or decreased participation. Ranges were determined (i.e. less than 20, less than 30, etc.) and each range was assigned a number (0 to 20) that was used as part of the algorithm.
Weighting – Each specific variable listed above was given a standard score out of 10. Using a weighting scale I varied the importance of the each metric to establish an individual’s total score.
Weighted for Popularity – the key variable is the number of people someone has following them. There are many online tools that show this such as Twitterholic.
Weighted for Engagement – the key variables are an individual’s participation with the Twitter community (as measured by the Involvement Index), with additional emphasis on the frequency of people name pointing an individual (via @username), the numbers of followers and the signal to noise ratio. Other attributes were included in the final score but were given a lower weighting.
Weighted for Influence – the key variables in this instance is a combination of the number and authority of someone’s followers together with the frequency of people name pointing an individual (via @username) and the how many times and individuals posts are re-tweeted. Other attributes were included in the final score but were given a lower weighting.
Weighted for trust – the best measure of trust is whether an in individual is will to ‘trust’ what someone else has said sufficiently that they are also prepared to have what they tweeted associated with them. The key metric in this instance are a combination of retweets and number of followers. Other attributes were included in the final score but were given a lower weighting. In the true spirit of ‘open sourcing’ this work, I welcome your comments, views and criticisms in how this approach can be as accurate as possible. Whereas I don’t believe for one moment that TweetLevel has found the holy grail of social media measurement, I think it is a good step forward and look forward to discussing this with you.
Filed under: analyst relations | 4 Comments
Tags: influence, nhs, nhssm, social media, tweetlevel, twitter
syndicate and subscribe
Most active posts
top posts all time
- Trends: The Battle For CMO Mind Share | Forbes on Top analyst blogs
- Analyst technology predictions 2011 « Technobabble 2.0 on Technology predictions 2010
- Social Media: Blueprints, eBooks, Guides, Tutorials and Whitepaper - Kleckerlabor on White paper – distributed influence: quantifying the impact of social media
- The Internet of Things and Change | Forbes on Top analyst blogs
- Tuesday's Tip: Why Context Matters – Forget Real-Time, Achieve Right | Social Media Blog Sites on Top analyst tweeters (via TweetLevel)
- January 2015 (1)
- December 2012 (1)
- October 2012 (2)
- August 2012 (2)
- July 2012 (1)
- February 2012 (3)
- January 2012 (3)
- December 2011 (4)
- November 2011 (2)
- October 2011 (1)
- September 2011 (4)
- August 2011 (1)
- July 2011 (3)
- June 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (4)
- April 2011 (3)
- March 2011 (1)
- February 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (1)
- November 2010 (1)
- October 2010 (2)
- September 2010 (3)
- August 2010 (1)
- July 2010 (10)
- June 2010 (3)
- March 2010 (1)
- February 2010 (7)
- January 2010 (5)
- December 2009 (4)
- November 2009 (4)
- October 2009 (3)
- August 2009 (7)
- July 2009 (3)
- May 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (7)
- October 2008 (2)
- August 2008 (2)
- July 2008 (3)
- June 2008 (5)
- May 2008 (9)
- April 2008 (8)
- March 2008 (7)
- February 2008 (9)
- January 2008 (18)
- December 2007 (3)
- November 2007 (9)
- October 2007 (8)
- September 2007 (5)
- August 2007 (6)
- July 2007 (8)
- June 2007 (6)
- May 2007 (15)
- April 2007 (9)
- An Implosion of Trust - Edelman edelman.com/p/6-a-m/an-imp… via @EdelmanPR 4 days ago
- @TNLUK is your website down? 4 months ago
- @ebookers I've asked repeatedly why you allowed us to book apartment that you knew had no disabled access-no reply. New room same problem 5 months ago
- DO NOT USE @EBOOKERS IF YOU HAVE A DISABILITY PUT IN APARTMENT NOT ACCESSIBLE FOR SOMEONE WITH DISABILITY & REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT 5 months ago
- Microsoft comes out in support of remaining in the EU in a letter to its 5,000 UK employees itv.com/news/2016-05-1… 8 months ago
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
DisclaimerThis blog accepts forms of cash advertising in the form of link placement. However, neither my employer nor myself endorse in any way the sites that are linked.