I recently had my Twitter influence calculated by TwitCalc and the results said it was "apparent but low."


I admit being put off at first. I mean, it sounded "clinical," like a doctor had just taken my pulse and told the family, "It's apparent, but low," as in, "We don't expect him to last long."
The funny thing is, I don't recall asking for the diagnosis. It just showed up in my Twitterstream.
Once I got over my initial shock, my analytical side kicked in and made me curious as to how they came up with that rating.
What I found was very helpful because, in my opinion, they base it on some substantive analytics. Finally, one's level of influence has little to do with the number of followers. It's no longer just a popularity contest.
The following explains the criteria used:

[W]e are making a series of requests to Twitter via their pubished APIs. The first request gets the user's details (followers, updates, etc.) and then we use the Twitter Search APIs to see A) who has retweeted them and B) who they retweet, and C) how frequently they are personally referenced in Twitter.
We include the user's reach and relative velocity of contribution (i.e., number of updates) as well, although these factors are down-weighted since there are obvious ways to affect both of these values.

For example, here is how the calculator based its assessment of my rank:

• Relative authority based on roughly 42 retweets [Link opens in a new browser window] of @pchaney's updates by others: SLOWLY EMERGING


• Relative visibility based on roughly 253 references [Link opens in a new browser window] to @pchaney: DEVELOPING


• Relative generosity based on @pchaney retweeting roughly 5 times [Link opens in a new browser window] on behalf of others: SLOWLY EMERGING


• Relative reach based on @pchaney's 3,984 followers [Link opens in a new browser window] : EMERGING


• Relative velocity based on roughly 257 updates [Link opens in a new browser window] from @pchaney: DEVELOPING


• Relative clout based on 1 influential Twitter users referencing @pchaney: EMERGING


• Relative value of contribution based on a signal to noise ratio of 31.9%: ABOVE AVERAGE

At least I scored well in one area!
The point of this post is not about scores and ranking. It's really about how you can add value to your community of followers and friends and these metrics give us a clear signal as to what's important:

• Authority relates to retweets by others (I always felt that was an overlooked metric)


• Visibility equates to references by others


• Generosity is related to your own retweeting of other's posts


• Value you add equates to the level of signal vs. noise.

The calculator defines "signal" as:

• References to other people you might be interested in


• Links to URLs you can visit


• Hashtags you can explore and participate with


• Retweets of other people, passing along information

Therein lies the secret to Twitter greatness -- focus on adding value by referencing and recommending others, providing links to other people's content (and some of your own too), use hashtags(!!!) and retweet, retweet, retweet.
That's not to say you shouldn't just chat with others. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, right? Just be mindful to work in some content that the community would appreciate.
(By the way, if you're interested in improving your rank according to TwitCalc, use "RT" instead of "retweet." That's the only version their system recognizes. Keep in mind that Twhirl and Tweetdeck both use "retweet" or "retweeting" as the default term.)