Changes in position and score are since February’s figures, and the same caveats apply as before to these numbers from TweetLevel (i.e. Twitter isn’t the only thing in the world, and this isn’t the only way of measuring people’s influence on / use of Twitter):
1. (nc) nick_clegg 55 (-4)
2. (nc) joswinson 52 (nc)
3. (+3) SandraGidley 46 (+6)
4=. (-1) lfeatherstone 44 (-2)
4=. (+1) philwillismp 44 (+2)
6. (-2) vincecable 42 (-2)
7. (+1) normanlamb 40 (+4)
8. (+1) willie_rennie 37 (+4)
9. (-2) acarmichaelmp 33 (-4)
10=. (nc). GregMulholland1 32 (nc)
10=. (+6) jgoldsworthy 32 (+6)
10=. (+1) SusanKramer 32 (+2)
13=. (+3) mooremichaelk 30 (+4)
13=. (-1) timfarron 30 (+2)
15=. (-2) AndrewGeorgeMP 26 (-1)
15=. (-2) AnnetteBrookeMP 26 (-1)
17. (+1) ChrisHuhne 25 (nc)
18. (-5) eddaveymp 23 (-4)
19=. (+7) JLeechMP 22 (+7)
19=. (+1) PaulBurstow 22 (-1)
21. (nc) stevewebb1 22 (n/c)
22=. (+3) dannyalexander 20 (+3)
22=. (-3) lembitopik 20 (-5)
22=. (nc) thomasbrake 20 (n/c)
25=. (+2) DonFosterMP 19 (+5)
25=. (-2) PaulRowen 19 (n/c)
27. (-3) malcolmbruce 18 (n/c)
And finally, ahem, I would come in top of this table (hey, my initials are MP so why shouldn’t I be in the table?) with libdemvoice just behind joswinson. Make of that what you will…
Share:
6 Comments
I get a score of 48.
But as with last time, this list requires the caveat that because tweetlevel only measures twitter accounts at the time you look at it, it is impossible to generate a completely accurate list of comparison between them.
For example, Nick Clegg has already shifted to 56.
So can I take you’ve decided not to run the kind of important ORG article that got prodded your way earlier today then? Do we really need over an hour’s clear water above a post about Twitter ratings?
James: it was partly to see how volatile the scores are that I decided to do this again (and will carry on until the general election). So far it looks to me like the significant changes in numbers do seem to reflect changes in how people are using Twitter, but changes of +/- one or two points are pretty much noise that don’t signify much. Much like opinion polls
Alix: LDV operates much the same way as when you were on the team; i.e. we don’t have an army of full time people sat at keyboard ready to leap in and write a new story at any given moment. Boring things like working at day job still exist
This post was scheduled in advance anyway, so you’re reading way too much into things.
Ok, I understand that up to the point where you say “This post was scheduled in advance anyway”. I thought (from ORG’s twitter) that they’d only written it this morning. I may well have misunderstood. If I did, and you already had the post, may I ask why it was not scheduled for earlier, given that the vote in question happens today and there is a certain amount of urgency?
It’s not really a ‘post’ that I’ve had from them (so far): more like a short email with links. Have asked for post, so if that arrives in time… else we’ll cover this issue in a ‘post-match’ report (though not really post-match bearing in mind the Bill still has quite a lot of steps and votes to go through).
I’ve just checked I score 52. So if I get elected later this year does that mean me and Jo get to chose which portfolios we get in the Lib Dem Government?
One Trackback
[...] in position and score are since March’s figures, and the same caveats apply as before to these numbers from TweetLevel (i.e. Twitter isn’t [...]