“Wallflowers”, “Gregarious”, “Curious”, “HI Reach” — Our hashtag reports are full of colorful and interesting terms! Here’s your glossary for understanding them all, in one place. Note also that you can “hover” over any term within a hashtag report, and a definition for that term automatically appears to explain the term!
Dashboard Panel
Impressions
Total Impressions. Total number of tweets placed in follower Twitter feeds during this group conversation.
High Imact Impressions. Total number of high impact impressions placed in follower Twitter feeds during this group conversation. High Impact means the follower has actively engaged with the followed participant — conversed with, RTed, or had some other personal interaction — indicating the tweet is more likely to be read.
Reach
Total Reach. Sum of all followers for all participants in the group conversation.
High Impact Reach. Sum of all high impact relationships for all participants in the group conversation. High Impact means the follower has actively engaged with the followed participant — conversed with, RTed, or had some other personal interaction — indicating the tweet is more likely to be read.
Tweets
Total tweets. Simply the number of tweets in the group conversation.
RTs. Number of retweets in the group conversation. We try to count retweets by matching tweets contents against a variety of common retweet patterns, not only by using the Twitter “retweet marker”, which can be quite inaccurate. A high ratio of RTs indicates the group conversation is more of a broadcast of information, and less of a social interaction.
Conversational. Number of tweets directed at other Twitter users. For example, any tweet beginning with “@someName…” count as conversational tweets. Hashtracking.com reports also search for a variety of other common conversational tweet patterns. A high number of conversational tweets indicates the participants are highly engaged.
Other. Any tweets not matching either the RT or Conversational tweet patterns. A high number of “other” tweets indicates the conversation perhaps represents more of a transient confluence of interest — a passing meme of interest that many people feel inspired to comment about, but not so much of a social interaction.
Participants
Total participants. Total number of people who participated in the group conversation. Hashtracking.com reports further segment participants by engagement in the group conversation as “leaders”, “engaged”, “curious” and “wallflowers”, which are described below.
Leaders. Participants who seems to be leading the group conversation, tweeting at least 10 times the average number of tweets for the group conversation. Leaders are very good, because they keep the group conversation focused and interesting. But there also needs to be a strong mix of engaged participants, or else the conversation slips in to more of a lecture, which is a much less socially engaging interaction.
Engaged. Participants who are actively engaged in the group conversation, tweeting at least 2 times the average number of tweets. More “engaged” and “curious” participants indicates a much more interactive, social group conversation.
Curious. Participants who are tentatively engaged in the group conversations, tweeting between 0.5 and 2 times the average number of tweets. More “engaged” and “curious” participants indicates a much more interactive, social group conversation.
Wallflowers. These participants are not engaged in the group conversation, and do not appeart to be actively engaged in the group conversation. Wallflowers are likely to be either participants who simply “dropped by” for a short period during the group conversation, or who are mostly obvserving (but not participating in) the group conversation. Wallflowers provide little benefit to a group conversation.
Participant Charts
Participant charts provide a convenient visualization of who is engaged in the group conversation. For each participant, Hashtracking.com attempts to analyze the participant’s engagement with his own network of followers — we calculate an interactive score between 0-100 to characterize this engagement. Hashtracking.com also analyzes the reach and influence of the participant’s high impact followers, and this analysis results in a followers score between 0-100 that characterizes how influential the participant’s community is.
Each chart plots participants by interaction and followers score. Participants to the right and upper portion of the chart are much more influential because they are socially engaged with influential followers. Participants to the left and lower on the chart have far less reach and influence.
Tweets Chart
This chart plots the number of tweets within the group conversation made by the most influential participants.
Leaders. Participants who seems to be leading the group conversation, tweeting at least 10 times the average number of tweets for the group conversation. Leaders are very good, because they keep the group conversation focused and interesting. But there also needs to be a strong mix of engaged participants, or else the conversation slips in to more of a lecture, which is a much less socially engaging interaction.
Engaged. Participants who are actively engaged in the group conversation, tweeting at least 2 times the average number of tweets. More “engaged” and “curious” participants indicates a much more interactive, social group conversation.
Curious. Participants who are tentatively engaged in the group conversations, tweeting between 0.5 and 2 times the average number of tweets. More “engaged” and “curious” participants indicates a much more interactive, social group conversation.
Wallflowers. These participants are not engaged in the group conversation, and do not appeart to be actively engaged in the group conversation. Wallflowers are likely to be either participants who simply “dropped by” for a short period during the group conversation, or who are mostly obvserving (but not participating in) the group conversation. Wallflowers provide little benefit to a group conversation.
Popularity Chart
“Popularity” is gauged by the number of tweets directed at a participant. A more popular participant has more conversational tweets directed at him.
Leaders. The most popular group conversation participants have been @mentioned at least 5 times the group average.
Popular. Popular group conversation participants have been @mentioned more than the average number of times for the group.
Mentionable. Group conversation participants who have been @mentioned at least once.
Stags. Group conversation participants who have not been directly messaged by any other conversation participant.
Influence and HI Influence Charts
The influence charts plot group participants who have generated the largest number of impressions during the conversation. “HI Influence” mean “High Impact Influence”, and the target is the number of high impact impressions generated by each participant. High impact metrics more accurately measure a conversation’s influence, because it measures true, engaged followers rather than raw followers (which is usually an inaccurate metric for influence because it is easy to manipulate).
Leaders. The leaders in the generation of impressions, who have generated at least 10 times the group average number of impressions during the group conversation. A large number of “leaders” and “gregarious” participants is good, as it indicates the message of the group conversation is spread far and wide across a large number of followers.
Gregarious. Active group participants who have generated at least 2 times the group average number of raw impressions during the conversation. A large number of “leaders” and “gregarious” participants is good, as it indicates the message of the group conversation is spread far and wide across a large number of followers. Of course, high impact impressions more accurately measure impressions.
Murmurers. Participants generating about the group average number of impressions.
Peanut gallery. Participants who either are not involved in this group conversation, or who are without sufficient following to generate many impressions. An active, conversational participant with few followers is usually much better person to have than an inactive participant with a large following, because the group conversation ends up being much more social!
Reach and HI Reach Charts
The reach charts plot group participants by the size of each oparticipant’s following. “HI Reach” means “High Impact Reach”, and the target is the number of high impact followers for each participant. High impact metrics more accurately measure a conversation’s influence, because it measures true, engaged followers rather than raw followers (which is usually an inaccurate metric for influence because it is easy manipulated).
One of the best ways to increase engagement AND impressions in a group conversation is to identify participants with a good following who have yet to tweet very much during the conversation. Direct message these influential, but unengaged, participants to draw them in to the conversation. The Reach and HI Reach charts help you very quickly identify them!
Leaders. Group participants with the largest following, having at least 10 times the average reach of the group conversation participants.
Influential. A group participant in the “influential” category has at least 2 times the average reach of the group conversation participants.
Average. Members of this category have (no surprise) about the average reach of the group conversation participants.
Unconnected. Participants with little or no reach.
