How Friendly is that SEO on Twitter?

by Christopher Yee on August 23, 2012

I occasionally browse my Twitter feed to stay in touch with SEO news and random internet shindigs.  One thing I’ve noticed is some SEO’s only interact with a certain group whereas others are more open to “outsiders.”

This social phenomenon shouldn’t be too surprising since it’s easily observable in high school where you have the popular kids, jocks, math geeks, environmentalists, goths and so forth hanging out with their own clique.  In fact, we can sum it up with one timeless quote…

Birds of a feather flock together.

With my growing interest in programming I thought it’d be fun to see who the friendliest (and not-so-friendly) SEO’s are on Twitter.

To answer this question I first want to define someone who is “friendly on twitter” as an individual who socializes with others on Twitter but doesn’t limit their interactions to a select few.  A very rough definition but sufficient enough for this study.

With that out of the way, I gathered my data by writing a Ruby script which pinged the Twitter API.  On August 1st, 2012 at 9PM PST I extracted the last 2,000 status updates from 50 high-visibility SEO’s (based off of those I follow and their friends) for a total of 100k statuses.

I subsequently parsed each of their following/follower count, total mentions (how often do they talk to others?), unique mentions (how many different people do they talk to?) and calculated a weighted score out of 100.

You’ll find my results below from the friendliest to the not-so-friendly SEO’s on Twitter!

Rank Twitter Following Followers Score
1 skitzzo 520 3,527 62.92
2 juliejoyce 663 5,563 60.10
3 samuelcrocker 416 4,082 58.83
4 justinrbriggs 346 5,905 55.72
5 sugarrae 156 14,661 55.15
6 aaronwall 268 66,441 54.67
7 robkerry 806 4,756 53.70
8 anniecushing 786 4,606 52.20
9 graywolf 212 20,669 51.56
10 audette 157 5,111 50.96
11 gregboser 612 10,586 50.84
12 katemorris 663 10,369 47.50
13 tomcritchlow 798 9,504 47.46
14 rishil 552 8,550 46.72
15 willcritchlow 1,039 10,511 46.42
16 paddymoogan 704 3,771 46.40
17 seosmarty 3,057 25,622 45.79
18 lauralippay 666 5,279 45.25
19 oligardner 73 3,329 45.16
20 jillwhalen 738 18,409 45.14
21 mattmcgee 500 15,804 45.03
22 portentint 4,974 12,751 44.46
23 rosshudgens 340 6,090 43.86
24 vanessafox 299 29,498 43.40
25 joehall 260 6,634 43.21
26 rhea 683 10,040 42.94
27 yoast 950 38,224 42.56
28 bruceclayinc 4,834 10,048 41.55
29 jennita 640 7,512 41.40
30 lisabarone 471 25,312 41.23
31 stonetemple 224 3,818 40.61
32 dohertyjf 303 4,150 40.37
33 richardbaxter 112 7,637 39.27
34 dannydover 652 7,032 39.24
35 searchmartin 82 4,390 38.16
36 cyrusshepard 73 3,040 37.78
37 wilreynolds 349 11,180 36.83
38 ericward 79 6,726 34.62
39 aimclear 367 8,236 33.30
40 gsterling 380 10,091 32.44
41 ajkohn 1,071 3,661 31.45
42 copyblogger 336 114,880 30.74
43 rustybrick 1,045 27,007 29.92
44 mattcutts 318 278,565 25.11
45 duaneforrester 243 4,146 24.81
46 chriswinfield 324 12,051 24.29
47 garrettfrench 101 3,791 23.98
48 ipullrank 419 6,320 23.35
49 dannysullivan 2,656 25,4230 22.32
50 randfish 66 64,668 18.51

This study obviously cannot account for a wide range of unknown variables.  For example, they might be too busy or maybe their Twitter account is a marketing tool or perhaps they just don’t want to dilute their “social authority.”

What do you think?  Interesting?  Surprising?  Let me know!