Comments on: Twitter Metrics: Let’s Remain Scientific, Please!

By: Formation MCMS au SAWI: Wikis et Mesures | Climb to the Stars

Formation MCMS au SAWI: Wikis et Mesures | Climb to the Stars — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:54:50 +0000

[...] Twitter Metrics: Let’s Remain Scientific, Please [...]

By: A Blog about Web Analytics I’m Going to Read — Climb to the Stars

A Blog about Web Analytics I’m Going to Read — Climb to the Stars — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:31:50 +0000

[...] get really pissed off at people who throw numbers together and then assume they automatically mean something. I also get annoyed at those who give their readers a worse experience accessing their content [...]

By: Metrics, Part 2: Are we measuring the right things?

Metrics, Part 2: Are we measuring the right things? — Mon, 31 May 2010 16:32:53 +0000

[...] same is true in social media. Count the wrong thing and you’ll do the wrong thing. As Stephanie Booth says, in the second video in this post: As soon as you start converting behaviours into numbers then people adapt their behaviour to [...]

By: From the Pipeline - 4.27.08 — Shooting at Bubbles

From the Pipeline - 4.27.08 — Shooting at Bubbles — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:26:59 +0000

[...] Twitter Metrics: Let’s Remain Scientific, Please! :: Climbing to the Stars – I’m not much for watching video posts but this one by Stephanie does an excellent job of bringing some sanity to this whole Twitter metrics nonsense. Well worth watching. [...]

By: Climb to the Stars (Stephanie Booth) » Just because something is easy to measure doesn’t mean it’s important (Seth Godin)

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:08:21 +0000

[...] Just because something is easy to measure doesn’t mean it’s important (Seth Godin) Similar:Twitter Metrics: Let’s Remain Scientific, Please! [...]

By: Urs E. Gattiker

Urs E. Gattiker — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:52:27 +0000

STephanie, nice post, oops video, usually don't watch these.

I agree with you on the metrics problem and I have posted something about it here, not being aware of this post, of course my fault:

http://commetrics.com/?p=35

I feel metrics are great but the challenge is to find effective ones that address what you intend to measure - and yes, numbers by themselves mean little if anything.

And defining what is noise and what is not or value added versus noise is important and the time factor as we pointed out in the above post is an important control variable that must be measured as well.

Thank you for sharing this with us.

By: Urs E. Gattiker

Urs E. Gattiker — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:52:27 +0000

STephanie, nice post, oops video, usually don’t watch these.

I agree with you on the metrics problem and I have posted something about it here, not being aware of this post, of course my fault:

http://commetrics.com/?p=35

I feel metrics are great but the challenge is to find effective ones that address what you intend to measure – and yes, numbers by themselves mean little if anything.

Thank you for sharing this with us.

By: WinExtra » From the Pipeline - 4.27.08

WinExtra » From the Pipeline - 4.27.08 — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:54:36 +0000

By: Claude Vedovini

Claude Vedovini — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:35:01 +0000

Good stuff,
My main concern about this is:
- multiplying or dividing figures does not make a stat.
- all those "stats" are done on a small sample (the people I follow/who follow me) which is not representative

It reminds me when developers think they can do design or when designers think they can code.

I agree that a subject need not to be clearly defined to be discussed, however just spitting figures with disclaimers (à la Dave Winer) or arguing that since we have figures we should use them, does not bring much to the discussion.

It's only noise.

By: Corvida

Corvida — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:51:17 +0000

The video was great! I left more comments on Friendfeed, but I think you're dead on with your conclusions and analysis. What Louis provided wasn't sufficient evidence, but it was a starting point.