We interrupt your regular scheduled important content for boring trivial content. Below is a quick statistical profile of how Twitter users engage with @dynamicecology. It’s mostly just me making notes to myself, but in the unlikely event you care too, have a look.
Here’s a monthly time series of our total number of Twitter followers, from Sept. 2016 up until Nov. 2018 (when I downloaded these data and then promptly forgot about them):
Ongoing steady linear growth. Not quite sure if I should be surprised or not, given that our posting rate (and hence the rate at which @dynamicecology tweets) hasn’t changed or has dropped slightly over the years.
The next graph gives monthly time series on how those followers (and other Twitter users) engage with our tweets. All measures of engagement are expressed on a per-follower basis to correct for growth in our follower count over time:
The take-home points:
- I looked up these data because I’d had the anecdotal impression that our tweets were drawing less engagement than they used to. I was wrong. On a per-follower basis, there’s no long-term trend in any measure of Twitter engagement.
- Only a small number of people engage in any way with any given tweet of ours. Even over the course of an entire month (during which time we publish 15-20 posts), we never get more than about 0.75 link clicks/follower. That is, the average follower of @dynamicecology clicks less than one link in our tweets per month. I strongly suspect that’s because a very small minority of our Twitter followers click through to many of our posts, while a large majority basically never click through.
- Different measures of engagement are all positively correlated with one another. I haven’t shown it, but the same is true on a per-tweet basis. Tweets with links that many people click also tend to be tweets that get liked, retweeted, and replied to. Unsurprisingly.
- Link clicks are by far the most common form of engagement with our tweets, followed in descending order by likes, retweets, and replies. None of which is surprising, and is not because our Twitter account is just a robot to which there’s no point in replying. Rather, reply tweets are rare because only a small minority of Twitter users use Twitter for conversations. For instance, the vast majority of tweets about scientific papers are broadcasts rather than conversation/discussion: people, journals, and bots tweeting or retweeting notices of papers, with no substantive commentary.
- There’s no obvious signal in these data of changes in how we use our Twitter account. Our Twitter account has always mainly been a robot that just announces our new posts with links to them. I used to use it occasionally to tweet myself, mostly to joke around with @duffy_ma but sometimes to discuss our posts with others. I stopped tweeting because Twitter discussions don’t work for me (YMMV, of course). But you can’t see any change in these data since I stopped tweeting. Presumably because I never tweeted much in the first place and didn’t get much engagement when I did. So hardly anyone noticed when I stopped.