Contribution, Conceit and Crying: Considering the Perceived Value of Tweets

Presented during the 2012 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2012), the following original research on “the value of microblog content” is shared for your review and consideration.

Prepared by Paul Andre (Carnegie Mellon University), Michael Bernstein (MIT) and Kurt Luther (Georgia Institute of Technology), “Who Gives a Tweet: Evaluating Microblog Content Value” offers quantifiable insight into the perceived value of Twitter “tweets” through the lens of content, context and evolving social norms. 

Primary questions considered as part of this milestone study of over 43,000 volunteer ratings on Twitter include:

  • What content do Twitter users value?
  • Why are some tweets valued more than others?

“Conventional wisdom exists around these questions, but to our knowledge this is the first work to rigorously examine whether the commonly held truths are accurate. Further, by collecting many ratings, we are able to quantify effect sizes. A better understanding of content value will allow us to improve the overall experience of microblogging.”  (Study Authors)

Predictors of “tweet” value in this study were based on “worth reading””neutral” or “not worth reading” ratings of individual tweets from eight specific categories that included.

  • Information Sharing
  • Question to Followers
  • Random Thought
  • Self-Promotion
  • Opinion / Complaint
  • Me Now
  • Conversation
  • Presence Maintenance

Additionally, the reasons for determining whether a tweet was “liked” or “disliked” ranged from:

Reasons for Liking

  • Informative
  • Funny
  • Useful
  • Exciting

Reasons for Disliking

  • Boring
  • Arrogant
  • Depressing
  • Mean

PDF Version of Study:  Click here.

Source: “Who Gives a Tweet: Evaluating Microblog Content Value” – Paul Andre (Carnegie Mellon University), Michael Bernstein (MIT) and Kurt Luther (Georgia Institute of Technology) – as prepared for CSCW’12, February 11–15, 2012, Seattle, Washington.

Comments are closed.