On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 4:47 AM, horrido <horrido.hobbies@gmail.com> wrote:

You want to know something funny? Most of the Twitter accounts listed here
show that most tweets are actually retweets. If you subtract the retweets,
the real number of original tweets is quite small, and spread far apart over
time.

The *Smalltalk Renaissance* Twitter account has had 16 original tweets in
*one week*. And no retweets at all.

By this measure, my Twitter account is far more active than anybody else's!

I'm looking at Marissa Mayer's Twitter account (she's the Yahoo CEO). She's
had 17 tweets over the last 3 months, but 12 of them are retweets! Of
course, she has over 861,000 followers and I only have 11, but I'm a more
active Twit than she is.

But she has the same impact with a retweet than with an "original" tweet. Doesn't she? She touches 861 thousand people...

I don't want to dispute, but I'd like to understand what is it to learn from your statement...

��- is a retweet less important than an "original" tweet? I never thought so... I follow somebody if his/her tweets (retweets or not) are interesting to me.

Also, do not understimate retweets as It means activity in another way. You're reading and following other people and selecting/filtering what is interesting for your followers. That's a lot of effort and thus activity :).

��- does the amount of followers do not count? I think they do... :/ as with them you have an idea of the impact of a tweet.

I mean, this email looks like you're trying to justify what you're doing with some random facts :)... You should do it if you actually feel/believe it, do not look for our approval! This "smalltalk renaissance" thing should not be for us, but for people from outside the community, isn't it?

��

And now I go back to work on my stuff ^^,

Guille

--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/On-Twitter-tp4797177p4797698.html

Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.