The big A-lister cage match on Twitter
So this afternoon, a fascinating debate happened on Twitter. And the topic? Well, Twitter. Or more specifically, how data and tests about Twitter behaviour are packaged. Can we call the use of those stats “science”? Dan Zarrella makes a living saying yes. Jason Falls begs to differ. The results? Entertaining for the rest of us.
Enjoy the show!
Below, I provide an exhaustive blow-by-blow of their conversation. First, note: I respect both these guys. But I admit a bit of bias. Though Dan Zarrella has lots of interesting insights about how we behave on social media, I’ve always been curious about his characterization of himself as a “Social Media Scientist”. Clever positioning. But is what he does really “science”? You decide.
Background reading if you’re not familiar with the combatants:
- Jason Falls very uncritically promoting Zarrella’s “scientific analysis” (his words).
- Dan Zarrella critiquing the “Unicorns and Rainbows” and arguing for a more scientific approach.
Please let me know what you think in the comments: who won? Does it matter?
(Images from Flickr used under Creative Commons licenses: Dan Zarrella – by Technosailor. Jason Falls by jdlasica)