ahsergio saw this picture (link) on the Brazilian version of Gizmodo and something was just awkward. Can you guys guess what that may be?
Thanks for thinking of us & submitting ahsergio!
(certainly, no disrespect to Gizmodo or the author of the picture. This is just something a little different from the normal cartoon ‘Find the Fault‘ posted on smartkit)
There are no faults!
I suppose some people must have multiple accounts to make more than 100 ‘followers’…but still there could be 100 ‘people’ only
“5 with more than 100 followers” where the maximum number of followers can be 99 in a 100 capita population
The grey people are unlabelled.
If the community has 100 people, how did the 5 “have more than 100 followers”?
Problem is with the “Only 5 with more than 100 followers”. Obviously if the whole of the Twitter community was 100 people, you can have even 5 with more than 100 followers ;).
If there are only 100 people then how can the “only 5″ have more than 100 followers.
(And what’s the grey area?)
How can 5 twitters have more than 100 followers if there is only 100 persons on this community?
Plus, what’s happening with the 20 people left?
how do 5 people have more than 100 followers if there are only 100 accounts and 20 of them are empty.
If the Twitter community consisted only of 100 people, how could 5 of them have more than 100 followers?
4 X 5 = 20 (pink)
10 X 5 = 50 (green)
1 X 5 = 5 (blue)
1 X 5 = 5 (purple)
(3 X 5) + (1 X 5) = 20 (gray)
20 + 50 + 5 + 5 + 20 = 100
Other than the gray members not being noted for their contributions or lack thereof.
Only the category of Blue “has more than 100 followers” has nothing to do with the number of tweets produced. The rest have something to do with Tweet production.
Is it that they claim 5 people have over 100 followers when there are only 100 people total?
I think the fault is in the description to the 5 blue people. The picture tells that there are only 5 people with more than 100 followers. But, if the Twitter community has 100 people only, then 1 people can’t have more than 99 followers. Because he/she couldn’t follow himself/herself in the Twitter.
The implication that females are 20% more likely to be a loud mouth or have 100 followers as males are?
if the twitter community was 100 people no ne can have more than 99 followers…
If there were only 100 twits, no one could have more than 100 followers.
“IF the twitter community was 100 people…” how can anyone have “more than 100 followers”??? Especially if 20 of the 100 are dead accounts, leaving only 80 ACTIVE (= following?) members, and assuming you COULD follow yourself…you could only have 79 (or 80 self included) followers.
the only thing i noticed was that the blue and purple groups are in rows instead of columns, though if they were in columns, they wouldn’t include the symbols for both sexes, so maybe that’s why they didn’t do it that way.
It seems that the blue group couldn’t have more than one hundred followers if the twitter community was one hundred people. They would have 99 tops, seeing as how you can’t follow yourself.
Ah… “If the Twitter community was 100 people…” would imply that no one could have more than 100 followers.
If the twitter community was 100 people, how can there be any with more than 100 followers?
Ok..here goes a long shot….
The number of females is more than males in the category of “Loud mouths”…..(Females to males is 3:2 in this category)
Ahem ….is this deliberate ???
The image creator is assuming that membership to one of these groups is exclusive. His assumption is wrong, in that:
Suppose that Pink and Green are exclusive. e.g. {X != Y | X is element Pink and Y is element Green}. This is the premise of the image.
Assume X hasn’t made a tweet in over seven days.
Assume Y hasn’t made a tweet in Z days, and is considered dead.
We now have three possible situation:
a) Z > 7. In this case, any dead account hasn’t made a tweet in over seven days, and thus our supposition is incorrect.
b) Z = 7. This case follows the same premise as (a).
c) Z < 7. In this case, any account that is a member of Green should also be a member of Pink, as Green has had less activity than accounts in Pink. This would mean our supposition is wrong.
Therefore, we can assume that Pink and Green should not be exclusive, which means that this graphical representation of the state of Twitter is incorrect. QED
Well, 100 people and 5 people with more than 100 followers each in that community.
So therefore:
1 person has 100+ followers in that community. But there are only 100 people altogether. If each person in that community followed that one person, that one person will only get 99 followers. Plus one if you include the fact that you can follow yourself (I don’t have Twitter). The maths does not add up.
Secondly, if 20 of the accounts are dead…then the total possible number of follows that a person can get decreases by 20 each person…which makes even less sense that a person in a community of 100 can get over 100 follows.
The only thing I can come up with is the blue category. Number of followers has nothing to do with how often (or not) the member tweets. I also find it very odd that only 5/100 have more than 100 followers and that they aren’t part of the main contributors or the lazy contributors section.
Oooh I think I just got it. Only 5 with more than 100 followers…. This is in the world of 100 twitterers so no one could possibly have more than 100 followers, in the small world that is. They probably didn’t realize any connection between normal world and 100 world when they were righting blue’s description
Before that i noticed if the grey region were turned to the right it would make a top hat. Or if you turn the whole thing counterclockwise 90 degrees you have Bulgaria’s flag (with random blue and purple in there)
yes, as the answers above reveal: in a twitter community of 100 followers, you can’t have more than 100 followers (or even 99?!)