Building from Hillary’s post, here is an article that I briefly shared during discussion, which I found to be provocative about Twitter altmetrics:
I stumbled across it when I was looking into the efficacy of Twitter in public engagement, since we were discussing it in the context of archaeology. There are some limitations to the study (which they acknowledge). For example, their conclusions about Twitter engagement doesn’t necessarily apply across all fields since they only focus on one discipline (dentistry). Also, this study is focused specifically on the use of Twitter in altmetrics with journal articles, not general public engagement (however you define that). [Sidenote: There are many enthusiastic proponents of altmetrics out there, and active discussion surrounding their use.]
However, I believe it does bring up a few issues that we reflected upon in class. How do we measure online “engagement”? Is it 10 re-tweets? 500 Facebook followers that actively participate in conversation (what is considered active participation)? A million crowd-funding participants?
My personal feelings are that online numbers are not always an effective or comprehensive reflection upon engagement (or the importance of a project!), though the reality is that numbers are what most people want to see and find impressive. It has also occurred to me that I view this as a key difference between online measurements and measuring engagement through, say, ticket sales at a museum. In the offline world, it's unlikely that we would be concerned with 100 fake visitors to an exhibit. Thus, perhaps this is an area where applying offline methods don't translate well to a digital space. In designing how to generate interest in archaeology and communicate archaeological concepts, these are going to be the issues we’re going to have to confront. I am curious to know if anyone has found different ways of measuring engagement with more qualitative methods to add to the numbers.