Remarkable lack of 'normal people' - that's when twitter gets really funny, interesting, insightful and witty. All celebrities and journo's is a bit of an uninspired list in my opinion.

Agreed - that's what makes my experience of Twitter so enjoyable. But the vast majority of those 'normal' people aren't in the public eye, or have as much influence. I follow a few who do wield a little clout, but not enough to get on this list (using Indy's criteria).

"If you don't know who rules the twittersphere, you don't understand the 21st-century world"

Oh, really? I think I understand the 21st-century world far better than a bunch of pretentious celeb-obsessed (Fearne Cotton at #10?!) journalists hooked on Twitter.

Is it just me? Am I one of the few who look at that list and ask 'Who cares what they tweet?' Why would anyone be interested in their one line thoughts? I get more sensible conversations from the checkout girls at Tesco than I could from any of those tweeters!
I'm sorry, I just don't see the point.

...said someone on an internet comment board.

It's not just you (I was explaining how Twitter works to someone last week) and you don't have to care, but you have to admit that the list is stuffed with considerable pedigree. I hardly think a top economist is going to say things like 'just had sum cereal LOL'.

Whether you use it or not, I think anyone who doesn't see the point of Twitter - as a fast-moving recruitment board, a news tool, a social facilitator, a direct line to interesting people at the top of your industry or at business you support/want to criticise, even just for the hell of hanging out with people like you, who aren't where you are - is choosing NOT to see the point.

Oatcake, That's really rather vehement. I thought as you did for a long while. There are many vain, self-important individuals using Twitter to issue meaningless 140 character messages. But before dismissing Twitter, I'd mention two of its virtues. I've found a few of the higher profile people, and many not-so-high profile ones, who use the platform in this way, making it very worthwhile:
1. Provide URL-shortened links to documents and peer-reviewed scientific/technical articles in my area of interest, thus curating and saving me time. I am grateful, and reciprocate, as do others. This is more efficient than e-mail distribution lists.
2. It is very challenging to write something meaningful in a mere 140 characters. Occasional gems of insight and humor are shared on Twitter. That needn't include off-color language either.

Tesco girls are generally far more attractive than I am. Twitter gives me a medium to occasionally feel lovely through a deft turn of language.

You appear lovely to me Ellie, far better than any other on here. Such a shame you are too intelligent for me! Tsk!

What a kind and generous comment! I am not too intelligent for you, Adullamite. Keep the home fires burning, stay warm and safe in the cave.

Warm cave indeed! :)

Hey, your ignorance is showing.

Oatcake makes sense even if you (not I) disagree with him/her, your sycophancy is more on show than what you call his/her ignorance.

I like you/you's. :)

Putting aside the question of the validity of the peer index system, I must point out a rather glaring error - that this isn't actually an accurate list reflecting the most influential tweeters as measured by that system. For instance, the British author Neil Gaiman (@neilhimself) scores higher than Sarah Brown - he has a peer index of 97, authority 95, activity 68, audience 99, followers 1,519,650 - and yet does not appear on the list at all.
What a silly, worthless article.

Yes it makes no sense, mine is 47 and I'm just a mere pleb.

What banal drivel this article is ...

Just a quick question -I've seen a few of these polls lately. Why on Earth are you all using the woefully innacurate Peer Index score? Just as an example, mine is currently 55 (Auth 51, Act 84, Aud 52) so I'm currently hanging out with Peter Jones yes? (oh, followers are about 1500). My Employer, with 30,000+ followers, and an average of 2-300 retweets on any given post from an engaged audience in the digital marketing field, has a PI of 35 and an authority of 12 at last check.

Basically, PI doesn't work (and no, that doesn't mean you get to use Klout either), the algorythms used by measurement tools aren't advanced enough to provide you with meaningful figures.

The point should be relevance to the individual -I won't buy a car because beyonce says I should, but I might do if A: I want a new car, and B: A friend or popular website/broadcaster who knows a lot about cars recommends it strongly enough.

As others have said, there seems little reasoning behind the order of this list. I, however, am interested by the quality of your mathematics skills. From Lily Allen's entry (37) "Potentially a Twitter giant – among UK tweeters, only Stephen Fry has more followers".

Now you have listed Lily Allen as having 2,648,080 followers and Stephen Fry (4) as having 2,104,855 followers.

So who is the genius on the Independent's payroll that thinks 2.1 million is more than 2.6 million? Perhaps this is a sign of the times and the awful education system we now suffer from in this country.

Damion, read this:

"Different people on the list earn their spurs in different ways. Some celebrities have many followers but appear to make little impression on them."

http://www.independent.co.u...

No Adrain, you need to read my comment properly.

The quote taken was "Potentially a Twitter giant - among UK tweeters, only Stephen Fry has more followers".

However, Lily Allen had over 500,000 MORE followers than Stephen Fry, and so "only Stephen Fry has more followers" is an incorrect statement. Their journalist has stated that 2,104,855 is more than 2,648,000.

I guess I have never really understood the point of twitter. I see it is a nice tool to give up to the second information on things but who really gives a crap what these 'celebs' are doing this very minute? Am I missing something? Genuine question.

There's actually quite a lot going on behind what you see in the news. It's a good way to keep up with friends/business contacts etc obviously, and a great way to stay in touch with organisations or up to date with news (not to mention a decent way to entertain yourself during your lunch bbreak). Basically, imagine a group of people you admire for whatever reason, all ready to tell you about things they admire. It's a great way to find out about any given subject , and it's fun because it's largely serendipty that leads you to new sites and information.

If you're a business, well, let's say you sell lawnmowers, you can search on Twitter for people actively saying 'can anyone recommned a good, cheap lawnmower shop in Staines?' and reply 'hey -I'm having a lawnmower sale -come on down!' -good, cheap and useful advertising and information when you need it without the need for all the marketing rubbish:)

Thanks for the reply. I guess I'm having trouble thinking of anyone I admire enough to want to follow.

Stephen Fry (and his wife, Mrs Stephen Fry) are always good for a laugh, and for interesting snippets too. They're the only ones I really follow.

Interesting list but pity no credit is given for the use of Twitter as a SOCIAL medium. Many on this list simply use it to promote themselves or their latest TV programme, show, book etc. and do not interact with others. I only follow a handful of those in this list but, of these, there are some good guys (e.g. India Knight, Tim Harford, Carole Blake) who are happy to engage in conversation with others. I think they should get due credit for that.

I would never admit to looking at a list like this.

With a PeerIndex of 46, you should be on this list!

Looking through the list I was pleasantly surprised not to see as many 'celebrities' (the sort the masses like) as I thought there would be.
Then Jordon - aka Katie Price (this is the way she likes to be referred to) cropped up at no. 89.
What on earth can she find to say that's of any interest to anyone? But apparently she has over 800,000 'followers'. What a country.

"For the first time in my working career, I'm beginning to get a sense of what people feel out there," he (Jon Snow) said in 2009.

For the first time? In 2009? What kind of journalist is he? Can this be why the deluded, soaking wet liberal dinosaur and incompetent cyclist has failed to make a connection with or even acknowledge the existence of the white working class in this country since whenever? God, I think I prefer that little toad, Matthew Wright!

@davidschneider is a must to follow on Twitter, irreverent comments on topical subjects. Nearly everyone makes me laugh out loud.

I agree with this. Schneider is awesome!

"sometimes I types an' thinks, an' sometimes I just types."

So I have a PeerIndex of 49 so where does that put me?!? The word LAZY springs to mind

I have begun to sort of see the attraction of Twitter, and have even used it myself occasionally. But I can't help thinking that it's probably just contributing to the overall 'dumbing-down' process that seems to have swept this nation over perhaps the last 15 to 20 years. Just my opinion; and one which will disappear into the ether, just like a Twitter tweet!

Well, with a score of c 55 I should be in at about No. 80. So, I had a look at who you did have and realised that what you have done is skewed the Twitter algorithm (via a very limited breadth human panel) to reflect your own biasses towards mainstream media personality / celebrity fame.

This is not the same as social media influence anyway, as this is a new medium and works in different ways. Anyone using your list would be very wrong about who is actually influential on Twitter. Quite a few of the people you have listed above just use Twitter to pimp their latest book/show etc, and don't interact at all.

Also, the Twitter story you have missed is that the Twitter community has got a huge range of new people who have become influential via their own efforts, rather than already having a conventional media platform to boost their fame.

I know, I'll write a grumpy blog post about dodgy influence measures sold to dumb newspapers, that should test my influence :-)

Update: Blog post as threatened!

http://broadstuff.com/archi...

I'm so old I remember talking to people ! Go on you remember talking, it's done with the mouth and helps you come to a better understanding.

The importance of Twitter is reflected in the importance of the people who use it.

I see, so this tweet stuff seems of self promoting brits, were are the rest of the world, do only brits tweet?

What an odd list! I'm not quite sure I'm clear on what it is. If it is an influence list, then you have confused influence with follower numbers - which is a rookie error to say the least. You've neglected to put in some seriously influential people. The likes of @Mazi (PI 64), @DarenBBC (PI 52), @DrewEllis (PI 55) are completely absent. PeerIndex doesn't even seem to know who @ilicco is! Based on the above, I should be ahead of someone called Katie Price as my own PeerIndex is 52!

Lame attempt at a Twitter list. I award you a #fail.

Great top 100, great Job PeerIndex!
You might want to add a link to a Twitter list with these 100 influencers.
Here's a public list: http://twitter.com/#!/itama...

What's with all the foreign names?

A new convert here. The point is you follow who you like. With 200 million accounts there are going to be some dud ones. I have found that comedians like to be serious on twitter whereas everyone else tries to avoid being so. I would recommend the Indy's own Rhodri Marsden. The best football tweeter is Paddy Barclay. Best of all: TwopTwips #follow

I would have thought that a Royal, sorry,loyal following would be a prerequisite. @queen_uk ticks my box and she's got over 120,000 followers

Damn, I'm not in there.

My Favourites are Rusty Rockets who you mentioned, the narrator from Come Dine with me (genius!) @therealdavelamb and michelle dewberry off The Apprentice @michelledewbs

Thanks for the list. As it's mostly a list of celebs, here's my stats, and why you should follow me (perhaps feature me too..?)

PeerIndex: 50
Authority: 46
Activity: 74
Audience: 52

Find these stats, here: http://www.peerindex.net/sa...

My Website is at: http://dsoundz.co.uk

Stay in touch...

Your stats have nothing to do with whether we should follow you or not.

Thank you for drawing attention to Peerindex.

LondonJazz's rankings are

PeerIndex 44 Authority 41 Activity 38 Audience 57 Followers 3569

Welcoming new followers, and we normally follow back!

Great Top 100 - Enjoyed reading the article today. Good to see Dominic Campbell mentioned who I follow. People might be interested in following some of my Twitter lists available @cllrharrington especially this one which features Dominic and other good folk in both National and Local Government using Web 2.0 --->>>> @cllrharrington/social-media-web-2-0
Obviously please tweet me @cllrharrington if you would like to recommend other good people to follow.

THEO PAPHITIS

ntrepreneur

i spy a typo.