Thoughts on #HIT100 – The Good, The Bad & The Ugly – Part 2 (The Bad)

source: yourmoneyguide.co.uk

In a previous post, I offered some thoughts about The Good aspects of the #HIT100 event. In this post I’ll share thoughts and facts about The Bad aspects of #HIT100 event. In a future post I’ll address what I think are some of The Ugly aspects.

The Bad (ok, not ‘bad’ – but could use some improvement)
To be sure, the following are not necessarily “bad,” but they're not among “The Good” or “The Ugly” – but perhaps aspects that might be addressed in next year’s #HIT100 event.

1. More tweets = more votes?

Neil Versel (@nversel) notes in a recent post that many highly ranked HIT100’ers are prolific tweeters and supposes there’s a direct correlation between noise and list ranking. To me, ‘noise’ implies junk tweets, excessive RT’s, and lots of 1 on 1 banter. This is not always the case for some people; witness #2 Justin Barnes (@HITAdvisor) with less than 500 tweets (as of 7/27).

2. “A” is better than “Z?”

Remember all those kids in grade school who were always first up because they had a last name that started early in the alphabet?  Well, that’s not always a undesirable thing because in the #HIT100, people with identical vote counts are assigned a ranking based on how their Twitter handle sorts relative to others having the same count. 

If you got 8 votes this year, you were better off being @annelizhannan (#65) vs. @WittRZ (#78) since that Twitter handle starting with an 'A' vs. a 'W' resulted in a 14 place improvement even though both of these worthy #HIT100 nominees received the same number of votes. Note: I don't imply that either #HIT100 member is better or worse than the other - they just represent the edge cases for those receiving 8 votes.

Technically, if nominees were ranked by number of votes, the #HIT100 would actually be the #HIT31. :)

3. Few votes separated the majority of the #HIT100

Only 19 votes separated 74 nominees! And only three votes separated @HJluks (#89) and @harrygreenspun (#61) – a rise of 28 places! So in my opinion this is a major blemish on the ranking process.

 4. Adding the #hcsm and #hitsm hashtags clouded many Twitter streams

There sure were a lot of extraneous tweets with #hcsm and #hitsm. As @tyrulallc tweeted: “Going cross-eyed scrolling through all the #HIT100 nominations in my home feed.”

5. What else was not so good about #HIT100?

What Else?

In my next post I’ll share some thoughts that I – and others I’ve heard from – have about some of The Ugly aspects of the #HIT100 event.  I’ll then close with a post outlining some ideas for addressing some of The Bad and The Ugly aspects; and what I consider are the qualities of a good #HIT100 nominee.

Footnotes:

2011 – #HIT100 List http://nateosit.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/hit100-the-list/

2012 – #HIT100 List http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/hit100-2012-list-revealed

2013 – #HIT100 List http://www.healthcaretechnologyonline.com/doc/hit-100-list-unveiled-0001