-
Website
http://www.louisgray.com/live/ -
Original page
http://blog.louisgray.com/2008/11/twitteranks-leaderboard-odd-mysterious.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
charlieanzman
60 comments · 11 points
-
Jesse Stay
221 comments · 70 points
-
Ari Herzog
43 comments · 21 points
-
ChangeForge | Ken Stewart
133 comments · 18 points
-
drewolanoff
64 comments · 53 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
FTC Disclosures Made Simple For Bloggers With Conflicts
6 days ago · 46 comments
-
Still Waiting for An Evil Google? It's Not Going to Happen.
6 days ago · 30 comments
-
Fighting Bots With Bots on Twitter, Leveraging SocialToo
1 day ago · 5 comments
-
Simler Adds Likes, Favorite Tags, Revamps Homepage
1 day ago · 4 comments
-
Gowalla Raises $8.4 Million for Location Check-in Service
1 day ago · 2 comments
-
FTC Disclosures Made Simple For Bloggers With Conflicts
There's one key variable you're missing from your equation, viz., the number of people replies sent to a given person.
at the top. Many of them are. What doesn't make sense to me is how an
unused account ranks higher than some of the most active, and how
accounts that in theory rank lower in every metric are given a higher
score. In your example of the # of replies to a person, I would argue
that @loiclemeur and @scobleizer get a lot more @replies than do I,
let alone @google, the mysterious unused account.
The leaderboards don't have to match, but they should emulate common
sense.
Why argue? The data is there -- no need to speculate. You're probably right, though.
You're surprised that the list isn't what you expected. To me that's good -- hey, something about Twitter that doesn't involve Robert Scoble! To you it's bad because it doesn't correspond to your intuition and is therefore somehow "wrong."
My point was two-fold: one, neither of us know all the variables that go into TR; two, even if we did, we don't know precisely how they're combined into that final number.
For example, it might not just be the volume of the @replies, but also who is doing the replying that matters. Think of how PageRank works. Each outbound link is a vote whose worth is weighted by the rank of the linking page. Replace "outbound link" with "@reply" and you have a pretty direct analogy: a few votes from highly-ranked people might be worth more than a lot of votes from not-so-highly ranked people.
Besides, if "common sense" is the metric why not just come up with The Louis Gray Twitter 100 and call it a day?
Just promise to put me on it. :)
The way it calculated my rank was totally different based on if I was typing my name into the top box, and if I logged in. So, I suspect your rank above would change.
But yes, there's something funny here.