According to Microsoft Research:
"Though the phrase "going viral" has permeated popular culture, the concept of virality itself is surprisingly elusive, with past work failing to define rigorously or even definitively show the existence of viral content. By examining nearly a billion information cascades on Twitter—involving the diffusion of news, videos, and photos—this project has developed a quantitative notion of virality for social media and, in turn, identified thousands of viral events. ViralSearch lets users interactively explore the diffusion structure of popular content. After selecting a story, users can view a time-lapse video of how the story spread from one user to the next, identify which users were particularly influential in the process, and examine the chain of tweets along any path in the diffusion cascade. The science and technology behind ViralSearch can help identify topical experts, detect trending topics, and provide virality metrics for a variety of content"
This latest nifty viral metric tool from Microsoft Research made me think about Arvidsson's remark and to what degree does it still hold any water: "This absence of a measure points towards a power vacuum within the information economy". In 2007, this might have been the case but since then media platforms have worked tirelessly to create tools to measure the movement of content on the social web. A lot has changed in six years. But despite its scale, ViralSearch still looks like a crude aggregate to me and makes me wonder just how meaningful are these measuring instruments and if actually, do they behave like speech acts? - instead of doing things with words, viral metrics 'do things' with measurement in the verdictive and exercitive sense that Austin talks about: to sanction judgement and behaviour of big media corporations. And this has nothing to do with whether there is any real correlation between measurements and what is being measured. Bit like marriage and love.