Mentions Don't Always Mean a Trend

Mention count, number of views, expected reach; these are just a few of the terms used by the social media marketers, but what does this information really tell us?

A major problem with online metrics is the potential for mention count to be manipulated by multiple mentions coming from both legitimate accounts and bots. Hundreds of comments, likes, or retweets from the same account will obviously inflate metrics, sometimes to the point where wrong decisions are made based on the flawed data.

Similarly, this inaccuracy can apply to the ‘number of views’ or expected reach. Often, neither metric will give you accurate information regarding the number of unique individuals who viewed your article or video if the numbers are inflated by individuals using different devices or web browsers. 

The same holds true for inbound content. Knowing exactly how many individuals are talking about a particular subject can be far more valuable than just knowing how many mentions there are. Too many times organizations will be put on full alert and devote resources to an issue that is rapidly growing in mentions online, yet the reality is the mentions are coming from a handful of accounts. 

One of the unique features of the Eyesover system is that we analyze our data on an individual by individual basis. This gives us the ability to report not only on the number of mentions, but also, the far more important metric of the number of individuals that are actually talking about the subject.
​
This method cuts through the spam and counts high volume accounts as exactly one individual, regardless of how many tweets they posted that day. By analyzing online content in this manner, we not only identify and discover real trends as they develop, we can use the individual opinions for key features such as our real-time polling and ad targeting while ensuring users are not distracted by noise.

---