Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Of 1.2 Billion Twitter Posts, 71% Are Ignored

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the stunning-underestimate dept.

Social Networks 192

destinyland writes "1.2 billion Twitter 'tweets' were analyzed over two months by analytics company Sysomos, who concluded that a whopping 71% of them got no reaction whatsoever — no online responses, and no Twitter 'retweets.' 'Only a small number of users actually have the ability to engage on Twitter in a significant way,' the researchers conclude, noting that just 6% of Twitter's status updates ever get retweeted (while 23% get a reply). And among those status updates, 85% have exactly one response, while only 1.53% of Twitter conversations are more than three levels deep — where a reply receives a response which then generates a second reply." I am astounded by the claim that nearly three out of ten tweets actually do get any response.

cancel ×

192 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

aww... (4, Funny)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858000)

I guess all the "i showered" "I dressed" "I got in the car" "I drove to work/school" ect... tales of peoples' day just arent *that* exciting

Re:aww... (5, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858014)

just because something didn't get an answer, doesn't mean it was "ignored"..

Re:aww... (3, Informative)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858074)

Its usually a good indication that they are ignored or virtually ignored. Perhaps they are read but they would be discarded as quickly as they are read, without any further discussion, comment or "nod of the head" as W B Yeats would say.

As this comment will probably be.

Re:aww... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858160)

You're right. We're all ignoring your comment.

Re:aww... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858258)

We are Ignoring what now?

Re:aww... (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858348)

is that counting "lol wuts"

Re:aww... (3, Interesting)

martyros (588782) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858784)

Its usually a good indication that they are ignored or virtually ignored.

Not at all. I don't use Twitter, but the vast majority of Facebook posts I read I don't react to via Facebook. I still read them, and am glad that the person posted them. A smaller number I click "Like", but there's not much else to say. Only a handful do I ever comment on (which would be the "retweet" or "respond" option on twitter).

That said, I found the signal-to-noise ratio on Twitter *much* lower... which is why I use FB instead. :-)

Re:aww... (5, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858836)

Its usually a good indication that they are ignored or virtually ignored.

So the social rule on twitter is to always acknowledge receipt of any post? When someone says "I'm in section 2A of the stadium", you're supposed to tweet back "ack'd" instead of going to talk with them in person? If a twitterer gets any responses at all, ever, then that's a good indication that all of their stuff is being read by someone, but only a few things merit a response.

Re:aww... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858892)

ACK

Re:aww... (1)

rockNme2349 (1414329) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858950)

So then, anywhere from 0 to 71% of tweets are ignored?

Re:aww... (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858276)

just because something didn't get an answer, doesn't mean it was "ignored"..

So, then tweets are like prayers?:

Re:aww... (3, Funny)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858312)

So, then tweets are like prayers?

Not in the least. We will play Duke Nukem Forever.

Re:aww... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858324)

So, then tweets are like prayers?:

I think you may be onto something ... only pushers (clergy/marketing) and feeble-minded people (believers/customers) use them.

Re:aww... (3, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858374)

Not exactly. The tweets at least have a chance of getting read..

Re:aww... (4, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858328)

just because something didn't get an answer, doesn't mean it was "ignored"..

The true stats are worse ... as I'll explain below:

I am astounded by the claim that nearly three out of ten tweets actually do get any response.

I'm not. "Social marketers" buy twitter accounts in bulk - ten cents apiece.

Many of the "responses" are from one "bought" account to another to try to generate "buzz" - the true level is probably in the single digits.

Re:aww... (2, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858378)

"Social marketers" buy twitter accounts in bulk - ten cents apiece.

Really? They could have mine for a nickel.

Re:aww... (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858576)

just because something didn't get an answer, doesn't mean it was "ignored"..

Does recent tech provide a way to count farts?

In other news, Windows Phone 7 today...

Re:aww... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858654)

Warnock's Dilemma.

Re:aww... (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858712)

And even more, just because something got a reply it doesn't mean that either the original tweet nor the reply actually have any meaningful message.

Re:aww... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858786)

just because something didn't get an answer, doesn't mean it was "ignored"..

Hmmm.... If you were standing next to someone and you spoke to them, would you consider yourself to have been ignored if they gave no response whatsoever to what you had said?

Re:aww... (2, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858546)

There are a lot of others, too. I follow quite a few software authors to hear about problems they've found or new releases. "Found a glitch when posting to Reddit" or "Apple just approved version 2.4.1!" don't deserve replies.

I never retweet famous people or software authors. I figure that if you wanted to hear Conan O'Brien's latest quip, you'd follow him. If you don't own a copy of OmniFocus, then you won't care about a new version. While I don't ignore those tweets, I have no incentive to pass them along so I don't.

Re:aww... (1)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858932)

It doesn't say they aren't exciting. Only that they aren't responded to.

But yes they're pretty much all total garbage.

Sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858004)

What was that? I wasn't listening.

Not surprised (5, Insightful)

jareth-0205 (525594) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858012)

I don't really see why this is a particularly surprising statistic. So most Tweets are only read by users... Most Slashdot stories I don't reply to and only read, does that mean that Slashdot is somehow limited or has a large number of dead stories? Of course not, it's just that most people do lots more reading than writing.

Re:Not surprised (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858240)

I agree with the article summary author - I can't believe that 29% of tweets get tangible responses - that's an astoundingly high number to me. How many highway billboards get tangible responses? Or paid political advertisements on television? We're a passive media consumer society, just because "media" is now being generated by your friends, I don't expect people to change and actually start engaging with every message that's flashed in front of their face.

Re:Not surprised (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858260)

Most Slashdot stories I don't reply to and only read, does that mean that Slashdot is somehow limited or has a large number of dead stories?

No it doesn't, but the fact that you (indeed, we) are replying, doesn't mean the opposite either.

Re:Not surprised (1)

HappyClown (668699) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858346)

This reminds me of a discussion I once had with an editor for two fairly large "sister" websites (that shall remain nameless), one for Java and one for .NET. Whenever an article was posted on the Java site it would attract 50-100 comments whereas articles on the .NET site would be lucky to get 10 comments on a good day. I questioned the editor about this, asking if the .NET site was attracting less visitors. He assured me that the traffic was in fact comparable but, for whatever reason, the .NET community was just far less active in the comments.

Of course whether this was due to the open source nature of Java attracting a more 'community' feel due to a host of other reasons is open to debate. But assuming the editor was honest about the numbers though (I have no reason to doubt him) it does demonstrate that trying to measure the effectiveness of a website shouldn't be solely based on the participation rates.

Personally I never post anything to twitter, I only use it as an information source by following various companies and people of interest. I find this very useful and I'm sure there's millions more who think likewise.

Re:Not surprised (5, Funny)

MrMarket (983874) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858456)

Agreed. On /., a response increases the probability that the story was *not* read.

Re:Not surprised (2, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858530)

I don't really see why this is a particularly surprising statistic.

That dependes: are the responses also counted amongst "twitter posts"? Because if they are, and every one was answered just once, then Twitter would go on forever with a single post and its reply and its reply's reply and so on.

Most posts must go unreplied, otherwise you get a runaway chain reaction.

Not the point (4, Interesting)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858020)

Why are we assuming that tweets are intended to net a response?

Re:Not the point (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858186)

Why would you talk without intending a response? Is twitter just a way for schizophrenics to talk to themselves without fear of being found out?

Re:Not the point (3, Informative)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858216)

tweeting isn't talking, it's a short/timely update of whats you are doing. Now you can question if thats is useful or not, and I'm not going to get into that arguement, but the idea that tweets are about 2 way communication just doesn't fit with what the service seems to be offering.

Re:Not the point (2, Funny)

Custard Horse (1527495) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858874)

It's a great way of keeping up with friends who you don't see very often due to being in geographical locations. A friend of mine just tweeted that he is going to LA for a week (he lives in the UK). I will know not to drop by his house whilst he is away. It didn't demand a response but it helps me know what is going on.

Of course, grammar leaves a lot to be desired such as the tweet "At doctor who live at wembley" by the same friend who lives close by. I assumed he was at a doctors surgery and wondered what was wrong. Turns out he was at 'Dr. Who - Live at Wembley'. The vaguaries of the English language...

Re:Not the point (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858394)

Why would you talk without intending a response?

I've been meaning to ask my mother-in-law that very question for years now.

Re:Not the point (1)

MrMarket (983874) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858478)

I feel no need to respond to tweets about public transport closures, surf reports, or any of the other numerous public service alerts now on Twitter, but I value them nonetheless.

Eureka! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858190)

If a tweet is tweeted but never read, does Jack Dorsey fall down in the forest?

Re:Eureka! (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858360)

If a tweet is tweeted but never read, does Jack Daniels fall down in the forest?

Re:Not the point (3, Insightful)

symes (835608) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858202)

Why are we assuming that tweets are intended to net a response?

Exactly - the thing I like about Twitter is that information can be disseminated passively by, for example, social and sports clubs but in a way that doesn't continually bombard email accounts with endless drivel. I can pop onto twitter and quickly skim to see what is what and not have to delete every damn message, as I do with with spam. So my response to twitter posts can be to go do something in the real world. Outside. A Tweet might even take me somewhere where there's no connectivity at all! So measuring value by retweets is franklly bonkers.

Re:Not the point (3, Insightful)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858300)

Twitter - perfecting the art of people talking at, rather than to, each other.

Re:Not the point (3, Interesting)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858386)

case in point

Summary says it all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858024)

I am astounded by the claim that nearly three out of ten tweets actually do get any response.

Which is amazing for what is essentially a one-to-many broadcast system.
(especially considering the trivial content of most of the "tweets")

Re:Summary says it all (3, Insightful)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858266)

and how many times does the response go off channel??

ie farm1785: SVR Gandalf ON FIRE
      farm1785: HLN ACTIVE PWR Discon rack 45
      [45 tweets from service monitors]
none of these would be responded to by Twitter

This is why I stopped using it (1)

denshao2 (1515775) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858028)

I originally had the impression that it was supposed to be a social site, but I got very little interaction on it despite having many followers from other social sites who interacted regularly with me on those other sites.

Seems low (5, Insightful)

cindyann (1916572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858030)

In my case, 100% are ignored.

Re:Seems low (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858320)

Beat me to it... damn!

Re:Seems low (0)

MichaelKristopeit 16 (1916820) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858562)

is that supposed to be impressive? i have ignored 100% of twitter posts, this story, and your comment.

Re:Seems low (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858860)

you are NOTHING.

Wow! (2, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858038)

You mean to tell me that the majority of people actually do not care about things like "just went to the bathroom" or "I am on a date right now?" Next you'll be telling me that most blogs receive less than 5 unique visitors per year or that the personal webpage I made when I was 13 was ignored!

Is this really news? I guess the precise number counts as news; I would have placed it somewhere closer to 99%.

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858400)

You mean to tell me that the majority of people actually do not care about things like "just went to the bathroom" or "I am on a date right now?"

What if this is exactly the category the 29% of tweets fall into? ;)

Dumb title (5, Insightful)

jonescb (1888008) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858044)

Just because nobody replies to the tweet doesn't mean people aren't reading it.

Re:Dumb title (3, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858168)

Just because nobody replies to the tweet doesn't mean people aren't reading it.

It doesn't mean that people are reading it either. And even when they do, they may be skimming through lots and lots of "tweets", and yours just wasn't worth paying attention to. I.e. you tweeted garbage, and people stepped over it.

That said, I know at least one person who, when getting an IM call from someone, auto-opens the Twitter page for that account, so she can pretend she knew what was going on. Those shallow enough to use Twitter as a diary seem to think she actually reads their tweets regularly and gives half a damn.

Me? I only look at "tweets" as part of investigations. That's more than enough. I couldn't care less whether "cute kitty is cute" or you listen to D.J. Anus.

Re:Dumb title (1)

JrGrouch0 (778235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858222)

Well, nobody listens to D.J. Anus anymore. That guy stinks!

Re:Dumb title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858354)

I knew something was up with that guy, I just couldn't put my finger on it.

Re:Dumb title (1)

mlawrence (1094477) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858178)

They would have gone into more detail, but they only had 140 characters.

Re:Dumb title (1)

parkrrrr (30782) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858758)

Relatedly, just because somebody replies to the tweet doesn't mean people are reading it.

'Not replied to' != 'ignored' (4, Insightful)

fridaynightsmoke (1589903) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858046)

You might as well say that X% of newspaper articles are 'ignored' because they don't generate letters to the Editor about them.

I am NOT expressing any opinion on the subjective usefulness of the average tweet, however.

Re:'Not replied to' != 'ignored' (1)

LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859022)

You might as well say that X% of newspaper articles are 'ignored' because they don't generate letters to the Editor about them.

I am NOT expressing any opinion on the subjective usefulness of the average tweet, however.

Interestingly, compared to the well composed letters to the editor, when the newspapers I read opened up online comments, I realized how stupid a lot of the readership is.

Character limit (5, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858050)

The problem is that it's very difficult to fit what you want to say into 140 characters. Unless you're into text speak, you may find that y

Re:Character limit (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858130)

RT @rik: The problem is that it's very difficult to fit what you want to say into 140 characters. Unless you're into text speak, you may fi

Re:Character limit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858284)

RT @Anonymous: RT @rik: The problem is that it's very difficult to fit what you want to say into 140 characters. Unless you're into text sp

Simple, just use perfect compression recursively! (3, Funny)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858198)

1

(Which is what you inevitably end up with after applying perfect compression that removes at least one bit with each pass).

It can furthermore be stated that for Tweets this achieves near lossless compression.

Re:Simple, just use perfect compression recursivel (2, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858288)

Actually, a perfect compression algorithm would have the entropy of its input as the lower bound: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Simple, just use perfect compression recursivel (3, Informative)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858422)

You take it too seriously... I'm talking about the "perfect compression" that is up there with the "perpetuum mobile"... Every once in a while there is someone that absolutely believes they've found it (like this hit from Google [wired.com] ) even though it's proven to be impossible.

Re:Simple, just use perfect compression recursivel (1)

qmaqdk (522323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858612)

Actually, a perfect compression algorithm would have the entropy of its input as the lower bound: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) [wikipedia.org]

Well, we've started to go down this road, so why not go all the way? Measuring the entropy of its input depends on the probabilistic model used. For instance, a compression algorithm dedicated to only describing the text of the Bible could do so with 1 bit. Either it's the Bible or nothing. Commonly used models for entropy calculations put the English language at 1.5 bits per character, so we've seemingly broken the above lower bound.

What you really should measure it in is Kolmogorov complexity [wikipedia.org] , which is roughly speaking the length of the shortest algorithm that generates the input (in some predetermined language, bla bla).

Fallacious Title (0, Redundant)

Dr.Merkwurdigeliebe (1055918) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858064)

They're not "ignored" - they just aren't replied to online.

Only a small number of users actually have the ability to engage on Twitter in a significant way

Define "significant", please. You don't get RT'd or @replied to on three quarters of tweets? Not surprising. Your friends read your tweets and know what you wrote, that's still significant (as happens to me all the time). I love being able to keep up to date on the goings on of my friends across the country. It helps me feel connected to them. I don't necessarily @reply or RT each of the ones I read.

Odd definition of the word "ignored" (2, Interesting)

Angostura (703910) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858068)

I don't use Twitter as any kind of social network, but when I tweet that "The school is closed to due to snow" I know that it isn't ignored, even if no replies are received. In fact, I do sometimes get replied - via e-mail.

Re:Odd definition of the word "ignored" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858166)

Should people get replies to every possible message? Twitter is more about giving a notification, not about start a chat.

Re:Odd definition of the word "ignored" (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858518)

I don't use Twitter as any kind of social network, but when I tweet

I don't use words or any kind of typing machine.

So what! (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858092)

You should see how many postings on Slashdot get ignored.

There is not enough hours in the day to read everything you might like.

They don't seem to understand the purpose (3, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858094)

If you are using Twitter to have conversations you are doing it wrong. Back in the dinosaur age if something happened to you(passed a test got herpes whatever) you would actually have to phone/write several people saying the exact same thing. You weren't always looking for a response but just wanted to share the news. Thats what twitter is for. It's not really meant for deep conversations.

Re:They don't seem to understand the purpose (4, Funny)

value_added (719364) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858380)

Back in the dinosaur age if something happened to you(passed a test got herpes whatever) you would actually have to phone/write several people saying the exact same thing. You weren't always looking for a response but just wanted to share the news. Thats what twitter is for.

No wonder I can't figure this twitter thing out. I'm out of school and don't have herpes.

Re:They don't seem to understand the purpose (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858848)

No wonder I can't figure this twitter thing out. I'm out of school and don't have herpes.

The whole life is a constant test.

Surprised the percentage is that LOW (3, Interesting)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858106)

29% of tweets aren't ignored. That is an incredibly good hit rate, for what is essentially a write-only, vanity medium. Imagine if that same level of response could be replicated in real life: nearly one-third of the mutterings and grumbles that we hear all the time elicited a response (apart from "Oh, do shut up!") we'd spend all day engaged in pointless and empty conversations with complete strangers.

Re:Surprised the percentage is that LOW (1)

Dr.Merkwurdigeliebe (1055918) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858132)

If we're defining "ignored" to mean "no replied to in the medium of the original message", then 99% of newspaper articles are "ignored" as well.

Re:Surprised the percentage is that LOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858150)

Oh, do shut up!

Surprised the percentage is that LOW (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858644)

I am astounded by the claim that nearly three out of ten tweets actually do get any response.

(Well, hey, parent got +1 Interesting for repeating what was in the summary, so it’s worth a shot.)

Somehow (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858120)

That's a lot more effective than I thought.

purpose (5, Insightful)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858164)

Twitter isn't designed for discussions, it's designed for announcements. If a weatherman makes an announcement that a tornado is forming north of a city, you wouldn't expect everyone - or anyone for that matter - to call him up and have a discussion about it.

Re:purpose (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858878)

Twitter isn't designed for discussions, it's designed for announcements. If a weatherman makes an announcement that a tornado is forming north of a city, you wouldn't expect everyone - or anyone for that matter - to call him up and have a discussion about it.

What little I have seen of twitter (I refuse to use it myself) it seems that unfortunately most announcements are of the class "I am going to toilet", "Britney wears pink thongs today", "Paris Hilton has no panties today either", "My cat is cute".. Ie. utter crap. With the sheer amount of all the pointless stuff there I imagine it's really hard to find those few meaningful tweets unless you know exactly what you're trying to find.

personal offset (1)

WarlockSquire (212901) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858180)

My personal contribution is the small but powerful end of the bellcurve...
somewhere there are accounts getting tons of retweets... I help keep that statistic low.

Have to say... (2, Funny)

the_one_wesp (1785252) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858188)

I'd be more than a tad disturbed if I found one of my friends re-tweeting: "Dude, I just took the largest dump in history!"

Since when has twitter ever been primarily about being relevant? It's always been about being real-ish, and for most people, reality is not retweet or reply worthy.

If only computers could classify "inane crap"... (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858210)

While the headline says that 71% are "ignored", TFA does at least say that they get "no reaction" (i.e. no reply or retweet). TBH, that's probably reasonable from my experience - I follow several announcement feeds but don't retweet them most of the time because they're specific to my interests and anyone else who is also interested can follow it themselves.

What I do wonder, though, is what proportion of those multi-level responses (replies to replies) and replies in general are from the unwashed masses with their inane drivel replying to the inane drivel of their friends. If only computers could classify "interesting technical pointers, snippets and announcements" versus "inane drivel about bodily functions or other personal activity" so that we could see the difference in the two and whether there are more replies to the important stuff or to the drivel that any sensible person ignores.

Re:If only computers could classify "inane crap" (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858408)

If only computers could classify "interesting technical pointers, snippets and announcements" versus "inane drivel about bodily functions or other personal activity"

if you're prepared to accept a 99% level of confidence, the answer is yes, computers can classify inane crap. The simple way to do this is to realise that something over 99% of all internet traffic is inane crap. Therefore saying "all of it" satisfies the 99% requirement (and probably includes this post, too).

bandwidth 'shortage' to be re-announced (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858252)

vote with (what's left in) your wallet. ignorance is...... dangerous? sanity is.... properly applied military/industrial/political hypenosys/espionage/terrorism? literally killing the opposition?

you have the right to remain silent.

the search continues;
google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=weather+manipulation

google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=bush+cheney+wolfowitz+rumsfeld+wmd+oil+freemason+blair+obama+weather+authors

meanwhile (as it may take a while longer to finish wrecking this place); the corepirate nazi illuminati (remember, (we have been told) we came from monkeys, & 'they' believe they DIDN'T), continues to demand that we learn to live on less/nothing while they continue to consume/waste/destroy immeasurable amounts of stuff/life, & feast on nubile virgins in massive self-adulating conclaves with their friend morgion, is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Approaching 80-20 (5, Informative)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858278)

Pareto [wikipedia.org] strikes again!

Slashdot Posts (2, Interesting)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858282)

What percentage of slashdot news posts are ignored? Comments? Sounds like the infamous 71/29 rule.

I get more reaction from my FARTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858298)

Of which about 25% get some sort of comment.

Of 865 Million Twitter Posts, (1)

M8e (1008767) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858304)

100% Are Ignored.

tweet tweet (1)

kaoshin (110328) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858350)

Reminds me of the joke, if a tree falls... [cnc.net]

Buzzwords (1)

Jacek Poplawski (223457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858376)

This is just a matter of time and you will all realize that buzzwords are still buzzwords. No matter is it 2000 or 2010, some things are just plain stupid and will disappear.

Twitter Vs. Facebook (1)

Great_Moloko (1815310) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858432)

I have to wonder what the percentage would be for Facebook. 71% may seem high (or low) but I wonder how it would stand compared against other similar services like Facebook or myspace

First rule of effective communication (1)

codeButcher (223668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858434)

a whopping 71% of them got no reaction whatsoever

Well, good! If you have nothing to say, say nothing.

People on Twitter have no life at all (2, Funny)

Golbez81 (1582163) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858438)

I'm proud to report I am still Twitter free. It's the most popular yet absolutely useless website ever. Post here if you are Twitter free and intend to remain that way. This thread is for you!

They're not supposed to be answered. (2, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858556)

Considering that the original (and to some extent current) "purpose" of Twitter is for posting where you are and what you are doing at the moment (see the slogan, "What are you doing right now?"), most tweets are probably not intended to be replied to anyway. And in the real world, that is also my experience.

Innovation vs. the best fit. (1)

phrackwulf (589741) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858692)

It is my belief that this development speaks to the niche that twitter can best fit rather than any flaw in the underlying tool itself. For example, if I have a Nook or Ipad as my book reader, I can do a lot of different things with it and probably will buy fewer paper books to read since I can just read e-books. However, if I want to take something with me to the beach to read (because I usually run there or bike) I will probably take a paperback with me to read rather than my e-reader because the paperback is more durable and if it gets damaged I don't have a problem. Twitter is a very valuable tool if you are a celebrity or a public figure and you have a large number of people interested in what you are doing. It is totally pointless for someone like me who has a blog that averages about 200 hits a month and can easily send an e-mail or phone call to the three or so people who might be interested in what is up with me. I'm a hermit and proud of it. With the current web, we're in the process of fitting tools to the most effective use because doing so makes money. It is characteristic of most late stage technological societies. The next question is what will the next technological leap be? Or will we finally reach an economic singularity?

TFA does not say 'ignored' (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858702)

I'd just like to point out that the word 'ignored' does not appear anywhere in TFA. By saying that 71% are ignored, whoever it was that wrote the headline for this submission has drawn their own, very clearly non-provable, conclusion from the data contained in TFA.

Sounds like... (5, Funny)

binaryseraph (955557) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858732)

Slashdot.

I'm eating breakfast (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858744)

Bet this one rolls in the replies, huh?

Twitter sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858858)

No shit.

Doesn't surprise me (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858966)

This doesn't surprise me (and I seem to be in the minority here who actually finds Twitter useful). I wonder how many Slashdot comments get replied to. Think about it. Suppose you have 10 comments to an article and 5 of those get 1 reply each. You now have 15 comments with only 5 being replied to, or 66% being "ignored". Add a few more second level comments, some third level comments, some "moderated to -1" comments, some jokes which elicit a "+5 Funny" but no replies, etc and you could easily have over 70% of Slashdot comments being "ignored" (where ignored is defined as not have any replies).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>