Twitter Stats Indicate 50 Million Tweets Per Day

[engine]

Twitter Stats Indicate 50 Million Tweets Per Day [blog.twitter.com]

Folks were tweeting 5,000 times a day in 2007. By 2008, that number was 300,000, and by 2009 it had grown to 2.5 million per day. Tweets grew 1,400% last year to 35 million per day. Today, we are seeing 50 million tweets per day—that's an average of 600 tweets per second.

Please note that tweets from accounts identified as spam have been removed so the counts in this chart do not include spam.

[Frank_Rizzo]

I think those stats should be broken down further by useful info and superfluous junk.

There must be stats on how many twitters say they are about to / have take(n) a dump.

What will the total TPD peak at? and will the figures fall back as quickly as they have risen?

[httpwebwitch]

spam or not, this stat gives us a glimpse into the massive data flow that Twitter needs to manage. Not in the same league as, say, YOUTUBE, but holy frijoles that's a lot of twittage.

[Zacharias]

and a lot of twits!

[J_RaD]

i'd guess it would be like taking all the IM networks and adding up IMs per day.

thats all twitter is kinda, web based IM.

[Rosalind]

I think those stats should be broken down further by useful info and superfluous junk.

I notice a lot of companies linking to their Twitter and Facebook profiles lately. Useful? That depends on how you classify all those advertising and PR announcements. A lot of it must be more or less duplicating what these companies put on their websites.

[httpwebwitch]

Usefulness is in the eye of the beholder... I feed noteworthy things straight out of my app into Twitter. Some may deem that inhuman robotic publishing, but those that receive the messages know they are following an application, not a person. So, they'll get tweets about new content being added - not human musings.

I say to people who grump about noise on Twitter: just be selective about who you follow.

I'd be interested to see stats that include all the spam. While they're boasting about the volume of "useful" content, their infrastructure also has to handle the volume of spam content.

[StoutFiles]

I'd rather see the amount of AIM messages sent when AOL instant messaging was at its peak. I bet it would make this number pale in comparison.

[J_RaD]

^ i think AIM would still make it pale today.

[Rugles]

I would like to know the number from 6 months ago.

I think it has peaked and now starting its much deserved decline into oblivion.

[httpwebwitch]

>> I think it has peaked

not even remotely. did you see the graph?

[Strapworks]

Are we at a day where most kids have more "virtual friends" than real-life friends. No wonder so many young kids have no idea how to speak intelligently, they are loosing touch on talking.
I say no technology for children till they are 16, then they might actually grow up with some social skills.

[achshar]

That amount is massive... despite of the fact that i know more people who hate/dont use twitter than the ones who use it.. All of that happens because of celebs getting involved...

one thing astonishes me.. its real hard to imagine the backend and server technology used here... space should not be that much of a problem... The maintenance and speed should be...
you hardly see any delays in response of both the user and the server end.

i would like to know the hits and unique visitors..
alexa or any 3rd party source cannot be accurate..

Are we at a day where most kids have more "virtual friends" than real-life friends

well thats true... (if you say a 16 year old [me] a kid) i hav 700 for mafia wars...

I say no technology for children till they are 16, then they might actually grow up with some social skills.

hell no!... that sounds bad to me...

[ken_b]

50,000,000 sounds like a big number.

But then you know what they say about statistics.

Let's see, how many tweets per day per user?

If that number were 10, what happens to the GREAT BIG 50,000,000 number....

oh yeah it would only represent 5,000,000 users.

How many people online world wide?

How does that world wide number compare to the Twitter numbers?

Good old numbers, you can pretty much make them say anything you want.

[Rugles]

not even remotely. did you see the graph?

I have now. I still wonder how much of this is commercial spammy tweets that are completely ignored by everybody. I have an account for the company and I am adding spammy tweets myself. I really do not think anybody is actually paying attention to any of this stuff. Its all just white noise for the Internet.

[mromero]

A sometimes user of Twitter our post on the sonic boom that was heard throughout our country as Endeavour passed over earlier this week was ahead of local media coverage by at least twenty minutes. A Facebook user was also ahead of traditional local media in reporting this event. And some local media were quoting these social networks before they began to quote CNN. The cops and fire fighters were not in tune as they rushed out to the coast thinking it was an explosive device.

[sgietz]

Well that makes about 1 million tweets that provide remotely useful information.

[JS_Harris]

When Twitter figures out how to differentiate real people messages from spam/auto/affiliate messages they will likely be happy to brag about 1 million REAL tweets per day.

[honestman]

All this proves is that we live in an age of absolute narcissism and laziness. I have scanned Twitter and Facebook extensively and the value I see is minimal. There are anecdotal instances where the tools are useful (as are many forms of technology), but so are cellphones. I find human eyes, ears, and fingers far more useful as a means of communication as a human being.

Twitter and Facebook will not peak any time soon, unfortunately, as it seems we live in an age where everyone wants their 15 nanoseconds of virtual fame (Andy Warhol was right, though he did not take into account absolute Attention Deficit Disorder.)