This analysis uses data collected via NodeXL, with methods described separately. You can read more in this thread.

I will update this as the conference progresses, as time allows (who knows what #COVID-19 will throw our way on the wards over coming days).

The initial analysis presented below uses tweet and retweet data from 13:00 on 28 March to 09:46 on 29 March.

There were 1,234 tweets posted by 458 tweeters during this period, with 3,371 retweets by 1,443 retweeters. In total 1,697 accounts tweeted and/or retweeted, with 254 (15%) just tweeting, 1,239 just retweeting and 204 both tweeting and retweeting. A question for colleagues watching #ACC20/ #WCCardio is:

- How many "just retweeters" will post content of their own (e.g. reflections on data they're retweeting)?

- How many "just tweeters" will retweet posts they've found interesting

Overall, 83 (18.1%) tweeters received 80% of retweets while 171 (37.3%) tweeters received no retweets. The top 20 tweeters (by retweets received) are shown in the table.

There was evidence of hashtag drift in tweets - while 980 (79.4%) tweets used the #ACC20 hashtag, 246 (19.9%) tweets used just #ACC2020; the remaining 8 tweets used #WCCardio. In fact the choice of hashtag made little impact on retweeting as shown in the graph.

The top 89 tweets from the initial period are then listed chronologically - this lists all tweets that received at least 10 retweets during the initial period studied.

Added subsequently - the top 86 tweets from 29 March (at least 7 retweets), and 68 tweets from 30 March (at least 7 retweets).

Items