Mr Tweet Blog - Latest Comments in Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

Eshops — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:16:17 -0000

Good article. Unfortunately you are right: we judge influence in accordance to how many followers smb has. Amount is at the first place, not quality.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

Eyeglass Frames — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 04:38:16 -0000

Glaucoma is often called the
"silent thief of sight" because this disease typically produces no
symptoms or pain until noticeable vision loss and damage has occurred. Vision
loss is permanent and there is a progressive decrease in the patient's
peripheral vision. This disease occurs due to a dangerous buildup of internal
eye pressure which damages the eye's optic nerve and prevents proper
transmission of visual information to the brain. Internal eye pressure (or
ocular hypertension) can be developed by anyone. It however particularly affects
people of African-American backgrounds, people with a family history of ocular
hypertension/glaucoma, diabetes, people over the age of 40 and people who have
experienced trauma.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

nursingjobs333 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:36:43 -0000

The topic explained by you is very useful to all.
For more jobs visit http://www.staffingpower.com

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

smithfreddick — Sat, 16 May 2009 12:40:32 -0000

http://johncenawallpapersan...

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

smithfreddick — Sat, 16 May 2009 12:39:14 -0000

http://johncenawallpapersan...

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

williyamb — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:48:36 -0000

Ecommerce Web Design we would like to share our thoughts here, as well as understand what everyone’s opinion is.

Besides being a very healthy topic to have a open discussion around, having a more well-rounded understanding will also allow us to construct our engine better.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

Boiarski — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:20:27 -0000

To "BE-HOLD" is a much stronger verb than to "audit" so I would argue this is semantic hair-splitting in search of meaning. Meaning is hidden in the etymology. IMHO, beholding is more akin to understanding, or completely comprehending or perceiving. Those are more active verbs while auditing, listening or witnessing are more passive and less perceptive. To "percieve" is rooted in Latin and means to "capture through and through." Behold is rooted in the sanscrit "to see" while "audience" is rooted in the Latin, "to hear." If I say, "I see what you are saying," I would mean that I can picture or imagine what you are communicating. But if I say, "I hear what you are saying," that seems to me to convey less understanding and more just "auditing."

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

Lord Matt — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 03:08:42 -0000

I'd be much more interested in access metrics on the number (or individual users) that [have followed me / I have followed] that have stimulate reactions one from the other. (was I just clear as mud?)

So for example: it seems to me that although I have a follow(ers) count at around 150 to 200 there is only about six or seven users I @reply, DM or retweet or that do likewise for me. The total number of people with whom this has happened at least once is possibly higher but this metric of influence - notable reaction would be a most useful metric of how well I satisfy those that subscribe. I would say this is my level of influence and that it goes up and down based on how interesting I am at any given time.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

Guest — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 02:22:47 -0000

Good read. Thanks

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

badchannelz — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:32:35 -0000

I noticed you failed to mention that open forums like Twitter and other social networking sites require a lot of patience from those willing to use them. As any big celebrity or company who has ever ventured into MySpace or YouTube can tell you, it's a major paradigm shift from the good old days of business cards and cocktail parties. Nowadays you need more of a thick skin and less of a thick skull, or else instant fame can lead to an instant downfall.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

rainesmaker — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:50:03 -0000

Qualify follower influence through peer nominations (Tweetnoms). Ask the Tweetnoms what drives their influence nominations (the 'whys' behind the numbers). Then apply a value index to the Tweeter-nominated influencers via secondary research (e.g., influencer's more recent 'external Tweeter' activities: conference speaking, authorships, etc... via automated web keyword search, etc). Just some 7 am thoughts here.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

zebrasfly — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:31:32 -0000

Influence is a verb! It happens to you!
Influence occurs when one reads or hears a statement that "rings true". It causes an "aha' experience in the "hungry for knowledge" recipient. It excites the recipient because it supplies the next piece of the jigsaw for which they have been searching. That piece of the jigsaw is the bit they were looking for but they didnt really even know what it looked like, sounded like, felt like. As it occurs/ appears, there is a moment of exhilaration and excitement that acts like energy and the recipient usually feels the need to tell others or thank them. On twitter it's usually done publicly so that everyone has an opportunity to check it to see if its their next bit of the jigsaw.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

Tom — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:18:59 -0000

My day job has quite a bit of influence so I use Twitter for other reasons. I use it for ideas.

The recommended influencers have helped me understand how I should reshape government policy. And for that, I thank you.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

Eric Graudins — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:40:03 -0000

There are degrees of influence, and everyone has different reasons for following others. And For example, Richard Branson follows me, but I don't think that he would be reading or be influenced by any of my tweets.

Someone else who is a small business owner could well be very interested in what I have to say, and my tweets could influence them greatly.

But on Twitter, they both have the same status - a follower of mine. I'm scratching my head trying to think of how you could assign a level of influence by monitoring the numbers of changes in the number of followers.

Perhaps monitoring the % of followers that follow a link that is inserted by a person could provide an indication of whether the tweets are being read - and therefore being acted on. (If Richard B.clicked on 100% of the links in my tweets, then he may well be influenced by what I write.)

Regards, Eric G.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

Karl Long — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:29:37 -0000

One of the critical aspects of Twitter regarding influence is "attention", ie. is how many of the followers that someone has are actually watching at the time a tweet goes out. I don't know about you but if I'm not at the computer for a few hours I probably miss 1,000s of tweets, so the individuals you want to influence need to be present. The other unique thing about twitter is it indicates presence when someone tweets, when you tweet back it morphs into an instant message sometime, couple of exchanges can be very influential, a complete argument can be had.

To me that's the critical part of influence that needs to be measured, the "action" or outcome. Without that pure reach is not a measure of influence. I don't know if anyone measures their click through rates but I get about 2% on all the links I post which is pretty high.

@Adgenius I rather like your definition:

"Influence is the power to gather people around an idea, concept or person, who are willing to spread this idea regardless of external benefits."

Gather? Maybe Lead. And rather than them just being willing to "spread an idea", how about do potentially anything.

I once saw Zefrank on his video blog "The Show" influence people to make an Earth Sandwich, that is two people laid down two slices of bread on opposites sides of the earth at the same time. The right motivation and tools people will do anything.

@Scott McMurren Too true that what is the point of influence if you can't peddle it. I say, why can't we, I think we should all have rate cards and I want to select the companies that I would promote :-)

http://twitter.com/karllong

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

serendipitynz — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:23:05 -0000

Influencers are so variable, I'm inclined to follow people who look at their "followers" and will follow those that are in the same sphere of interest. I'm not inclined to follow those who have a disproportionate number of followers to those followed, ie who have 2000 followers but only follow 100.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

BillyWarhol — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:23:08 -0000

I'm checking the Influencers at the Bottom of Mr. Tweets Suggestions*

Why U might ask? Cuz I like taking the Road less Travelled, the Scenic Route if U swill*

;)) Peace*

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

Alistair Nicholson — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:01:04 -0000

Let me add that there is the dynamic aspect of this too. Is your network growing or shrinking. If a person tries to 'play' the system by suddenly retweeting @timoreilly all the time, their influence will shrink because their followers will vanish. They joined for one set of behaviour - change behaviour artifically for a better score - they should leave. I guess megastars get an exemption - @timoreilly could lose 2000 followers and would still carry staggering influence.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

Alistair Nicholson — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:50:41 -0000

Let's replay this then -

there are gross measures - e.g. how many followers do I have, how many of my followers have huge followings.
There are subcommunity measures - who follows me in web design or bus driving interest communities.
There is my bridging behaviour - do I cross subtopics or even larger topic communities.
There is the nature of my tweets - do I distribute others views by retweet, do I put links to multiple sites, do I put links to my own blogs along with others, do I only promote myself by exclusively linking to my own blogs, do I ever get retweeted, who retweets me, do I just talk about the weather and cool parties (still a social influence).

The guys at thenetworkthinker.com and networkweaving.com have done some really interesting work on determining groupings. My 8 Factors for Web 2.0 Business Success Article (follow my blog link) has the links to a couple of their articles in the text. They used Amazon Book buying data to determine the degree of political polarisation.

Metadata around books mentioned in tweets, links referred to in tweets (need to unpack tinyurl and is.gd) including keywords in title area, metadata associated with a tweeters profile link and the wording in the twitter bio, maybe analyse twitterer profile link to search for further metadata, presence of # tags and nature of tag, will all contribute to a cluster of first path category metadata. Participation with others will give you second level classification.

Then you have to work out what it means and give it a rating(s). Perhaps 1-10 for each factor to keep the numbers manageable. Tot2-Soc1-Loc7-BA5-WebS-2 would give me a comparative rating of total (the world - I make just above the bottom), Social (I am the Bottom), Location (pretty good for my one horse town), and then the specialist communities - a factor of 1 doesn't get listed because otherwise it would fill the page. So I would hypothetically have Business Analysis midrange and web Strategy just above the bottom.

Something like that would really be useful to both viewpoints. Me understanding my place, others assessing my role.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

admin — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:05:12 -0000

@Rob Thanks for the great definition! Question is, do you think that can that be encapsulated in a way that is deeper than "followers" count?

@MattSearles Some very good points in here. In essence, you are saying to allow people to express more about themselves, like who they want to be contacted with, why and how?

@Rufus Very interesting set of analytics. I think that is the kind of analytics that a marketer will kill for! That said, Twitter needs to grow a lot bigger for most marketers to treat it seriously.

@ScottMcMurren True, but people who peddle their influence lose it fast. ;)

@blacksonville : Please DM us if you have any ideas, or if you heard anything worthy on this front.

@AnthonyWhyms Thanks for the great explanation. Besides a bio, what information would you like to provide such that you believe can help you reach your target audience?

@[Enikao] Very very true. I like the term "meta-influencer" It nicely encapsulates what we are trying to achieve here - which is highlight great people in niches who might not have 20,000 followers!

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

[Enikao] — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 05:42:53 -0000

Although it is hard to determine what exactly influence is (change a mind, make s.o. do something, like clic, buy or else ?), I've posted a similar idea about "meta influence" for blogs.

The idea : there are some bloggers who are not mainstram, have few followers, but whi are regularly red and commented... by popular bloggers with a huge audience. These ones are meta-influencers : they have an impact on the influencers, who might relay your ideas or posts.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

Anthony Whyms — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 04:58:54 -0000

Determining influence numerically might keep you up at night and even be painful.

We'd all like an accurate measurement of our personal influence on other's purchases of Pop-Tarts, Red Bull and online purchases, so I'm sure, the question of wether this can be done accurately with our Tweets will be determined by how effective the system will be in weeding out A-listers, bots, no activity followers and our personal tweets and re-tweets.

In short, reality dictates it will not be completely efficient and some Tweeters WILL attempt to skew the numbers to make their standings (and bragging rights) shine.

So like the ubiquitous Alexa ranking, the ranking on Mr. Tweet may just wind up being a guideline rather than a true reflection of how far reaching a member of Twitter can affect true change.

Remember: Obama was already a hot commodity and just brought that hotness to Twitter AFTER he announced in mainstream media that he was
using SMS to announce his VP.

His current influence is an outgrowth of his uniqueness in other media.

Me? Well, I want to influencer the Twitterverse in following up & coming entrepreneurs through my Blog Talk Radio show and soon myUSTreamTV.com live web show.

I want to find influencers of young entrepreneurs, women and second-career dads who, in this hyper-intensive economic mire, want to improve their lives and live free of the restraint of a job.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

blacksonville — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 23:20:24 -0000

I enjoyed perusing your content. I understand the ideology of "influence", what I am trying to determine is how do you monetize your efforts with twitter. What tools do you recommend to leverage influential content AND audience to create value for publishers and advertisers. Stay tune, solutions are made every second.

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

veryheaven — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:19:09 -0000

as machiavellis bride and godess of spiritual networking i assure you that our influence comes directly from our brilliant scent of power and brains :-)

Re: Influence is in the eye of the audience (not the beholder)

Scott McMurren — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:19:10 -0000

Pray tell: What good is influence if you cannot peddle it? jk (sort of)