arrow2 Comments
  1. Egon Willighagen
    Sep 03 - 1:50 am

    To put this in perspective… let’s compare to Science Online London, which started yesterday.

    Seats were limited at solo11 and I guess up to 200 people are physically attending the meeting. And I do not know the count of participants of Denver, but is most likely above 10 thousand. (Boston last year peaked to beyond 15 thousand).

    #acsdenver tweets rose up to 1788 when I checked the summary this morning, for the full week, while #solo11 made 3285 after the first day. Interestingly, while the top tweeter posted about 60 posts more (236 versus 176) with #solo11, the number first posters have both about 75 tweets.

    Of course, a stronger online engagement is to be expected of Science Online [London|New York]. This is also reflected on @lanyrd where I listed speakers with Twitter accounts:

    While virtually attending #acsdenver I particularly looked out for speakers online, but did not get beyond 10. #solo11 comes to 28 speakers with a twitter account.

    All in all, I do not believe it skyrocketed at all. It’s more that when you start with few, it is easy to double. And I even find 490 tweets on the low side for Boston, but hard to look at that now, as none of these tweets can still be found.

    If you really want to skyrocket next time, make sure that things are more organized; show that there is critical mass; have session organizers post twitter accounts for speakers; use something like @lanyrd to aggregated twitter accounts *and* presentation slides (@ChemConnector has some online for #acsdenver); etc.

  2. Lauren Wolf
    Sep 06 - 11:43 am

    Egon, thanks for the analysis. I agree that about 2,000 tweets for a 10,000-plus attendee meeting that goes for an entire week is not exactly a flood. I’m not sure how ACS promotes the meeting hashtag ahead of time, but it is something to look into.

Mobile Theme