mscedc tweetorial
<div>This link displays the top urls tweeted. This was valuable for me because I missed some of them during the tweetorial. The provision of this archive made me think I should be more purposeful and methodical about the way I capture tweeted links. So, educationally useful data if shared with the student.</div>
<div>I didn't make it on to the Influencer Index in spite of having a few more followers than one or two who were there. Perhaps this is a representative picture (although the term index would suggest not) or that there are other algorithmic factors at play.</div>
<div>The word 'perhaps' was counted 11 times during the tweetorial. It may reflect a tentative and questioning aspect of some tweets although its ranking suggests that was not predominant.</div>
<div>Is the number of tweets per person a useful metric? It reflects engagement with the tweetorial, but doesn't explain why. Does the amount of engagement correlate with the most gained from the exercise? Even engagement could be questioned if the top tweeter had employed a bot to tweet intelligently and often!</div>
<div>Tweeted images and their presence as a group in the archive shows vividly how they were used as comments or commentary as well as a playful aspect of the tweetorial. Some meaning is gained by grouping them together, but they have lost their context which would have revealed, for example, a break from serious thinking or a concise way of expressing something Twitter would otherwise have cut short.</div>
<div>The tweet source data shows the device or the software used by the group and is the most revealing of context the archive enables.</div>
<div>Unsure of the language encoded as *und* - it didn't figure on the list of TWO letter langage codes.Did something go wrong here, or was it something I missed? It would be more useful if it linked back to the relevant tweet(s).</div>
<div>Location data was not included in the 'analysis' but would have been meaningful to show those joining in the conversation in different time zones.</div>
<div>This chart shows tweets per day: 153 and 187 on the two tweetorial days. Did it *feel* like that number of tweets? Did we have a sense of the volume of tweets and how might that have affected our engagement, especially for those dipping in and out of the conversations?</div>
<div>The tutors had the most user mentions which is reflective of our answering their questions. The healthy number of user mentions shows how we were 'talking to each other', something I had a definite sense of during the tweetorial.</div>
<div>Using tags to play the algorithms - frustrate and resist :)</div>
<div>When we see polished data visualisations interpretation-ready, we might not question the data integrity or look for information on data decisions. We can see clearly, however, what was chosen to be measured and thus an indication of what was deemed important.</div>

This site uses cookies to deliver our services. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy. Your use of ThingLink's Products and Services, is subject to these policies and terms.