Who are #twitterstorians v #digitalhumanities starts here.
Results from yesterday showed #digitalhumanities slightly more active than #twitterstorians (about 10% more tweets), but other than that the two #hashtags are superficially quite similar in number of users, number of RT and links tweeted.

Questions for today are #twitterstorians and #digitalhumanities distinct or overlapping communities?  Why does #digitalhumanities feel more interactive to me?

I went back to my original spreadsheets generated with @mhawksey tool tags 3.1

Finding 1 Analysis of hashtag usage frequency reveals similar patterns between #twitterstorians and #digitalhumanities
as the above shows, the tweeps using these hashtags are still quite a limited group so generalizations here should be taken as extremely preliminary.

Between the two hashtags, only 1 tweep overlapped in “top tweeter” category.  @Marlalbur used both tags on her three posts.  Her profile begins “#digitalhumanities #Twitterature #Twitterstorians” revelaing her to be an astute user of the hashtag.  @Marlalbur is research associate for The Gothic Past and a Trinity College Dublin grad student in Department of the History of Art and Architecture.

I quickly realized that I couldn’t get the information I wanted, which was largely relational,* from my spreadsheet, but a google search revealed another @mhawksey tool TAGSEExplorer that used my spread sheet to visualize not only top tweeters, but top “conversationalists.” ***
Finding #2 No overlap between top conversationalists for hashtags, indicating that #twitterstorians and #digitalhumanities users are distinct groups.

I zoomed in to see if data could reveal why I anecdotally felt that @twitterstorians were less active and interactive than #digitalhumanities.    The spreadsheet I’m using tracks “reply to” but the yield seem really low 8 for #twitterstorians and #12 for #digitalhumanities.
I wondered was there any overlap between top tweeters and top conversationalist within each hashtag. For #twitterstorinas 2 (11%) top conversaltionalists also appear as top tweeters. For #digitalhumanities 5 (23%)  of top conversationalist were top tweeters.  #Twitterstorians top tweeters averaged 5.7 tweets, #digitalhistorians averaged 5.38 average tweets.

Finding #3 Although they tweeted the same volume, #digitalhumanities top tweeters twice as likely to also be top conversationalists than #twitterstorians.

Another (related) set of numbers provides the second part of the explanation of why #digitalhistorians “feels” more interactive (and no doubt is part of the algorithm used to calculate top conversatioanlists).

Finding # 4 #twitterstorians 18% more likely than #digitalhumanities to tweet to “no one” (tweet without using @)

103 or 330 (31%) #digitalhumanities contained no @
149 of 303 (49%) #twitterstorians contained no @

#twitterstorians appear less interactive than #digitalhistories because they tweet at no one in specific.  I haven’t pulled the reverse, tweeps listed say on  (creator of #twitterstorians) list of #twitterstorians who tweet @ people but without using hashtag and that severely limits my ability to draw firm conclusions.  I haven’t run numbers to see what % of tweets by an individual on my spreadsheet include #, but my skim reveals lots of tweeps I know are far more active than the very few number of tweets pulled in the hashtag-driven data.

The non-use of hashtags gets at the dual nature of Twitter.  While on the one hand it functions almost as asynchronous bulletin boards did in the past, as a way of passing messages to people, Twitter increasingly also functions as a blog, a searchable repository of information.  In the latter case hashtags are crucial, in the former @ more important.  

My quick and dirty stats reveal that the limited hashtags  (although also shows almost no difference between usage of the two hashtags).
253 twitters used #twitterstorians only 1 (83%)
282 twitters used #digitalhumanities only 1 (85%)

I didn’t run numbers to see how many times people who tweet as #twitterstorians or #digitalhumanities don’t use any #, but again my quick skim reveals that it is probably a fairly high number.

Finding #5 #Twitterstorians should use @ more.  All tweeters should use hashtags more and use reply to make conversation easy to read for others.

While all of the above would seem to indicate that #twitterstorians and #digitalhumanities are distinct communities of users, I wanted to look at one more question, that of “influence.”  Klout doesn’t get down to levels of distinction between various academics (we are lumpen to them apparently), but We Follow does****.  There is something glitchy in that site for sure.  My profile has never updated for example.  Still there is a list of digitalhumanities, a nonfunctional one for twitterstorians, and a functional one for historians
The #digitalhuanities include 9 historians in the top 25, many of whom are associated with big academic research centers.   As  pointed out to me since her stream is almost exclusively #digitalhumanities she rarely uses hashtags, which explains why some of these tweeps didn’t show up in the data grab.  
What I wondered though was would the list of influential historians overlap at all with the list of influential digital humanities people? The answer was no.  Not a single top 25 #historian is also a top twenty five #digitalhumanities 
Finding #6 apparently you can be influential #twitterstorian or #digitalhumanities but not both (yet)
Bottom line?

I found 6 instances of #ff by #twitterstorians and none from #digitalhumanities, indicating to me that #twitterstorians want to build community online. Interestingly there has been recent tweeting among some digital humanities lit tweeps about need for parallel tag to #twitterstorians such as #twitterature, indicating to me that they’d like a stronger sense of identity on twitter.  Identity and community both have a place on Twitter, which I hope to dive into in my next post, in which I use my qualitative skills to root around to see how #twitterstorians and #digitalhumanities (and maybe even digital history) people interact, even when they don’t use their hashtags!  I’m still wondering if perhaps digital history is lurking somewhere inside #twitterstorians and/or #digitalhumanities.
*One person tweeted 41 times and was excluded from this analysis as an outlier.
**better programmers than I could probably get a ton out of this data, so here are open links have at it digitahumanities twitterstorians. There is an intriguing “get friend follower relationship” that keeps kicking back an error message even though I’ve API authenticated
*** for #digitalhumanities 21 top conversationalists 17 #twitterstorians due to larger volume of #digitalhumanities tweets.
**** The biggest drawback to relying on We follow is that user must enter his or her self and select tags.