image/svg+xml7 IX/1/2018 InterdIscIplInarIa archaeologIca natural scIences In archaeology homepage: Refections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology Dominik Hagmann a* a Department of Classical Archaeology, Faculty of Historical and Cultural Studies, University of Vienna, Franz-Klein-Gasse 1, 1190 Vienna, Austria 1. Introduction This paper presents a case study concerning the use of the social networking sites (SNS) Twitter, Sketchfab, and ResearchGate as an integrated tool for digital science communication in archaeology. Although this combination seems to be characterised by means of a distinct heterogeneity among the diferent SNS, the interlocking of the various sites will be highlighted and its importance outlined. Therefore, the basic workfow for combining a microblogging service with a 3D content sharing site and a scientifc social network shall be delineated within the framework of science communication.Disseminating data digitally can be handled in diferent ways, both actively and passively. An active manner can be the triggering of a social media war: in general, war might be seen here as permanent adversity between at least two parties. This adversity can arise for various reasons and take diferent courses on diferent intensity levels (Kekes 2010). Expanding the meaning of war to include digital conficts within the realm of information and computer science, this permanent adversity can be easily combined with social media , specifcally the social web , as an integral part of Web 2.0 ( e.g. Conole, Dyke, 2016; Ebersbach et al. , 2016, pp. 11–33; Neal, 2012; Rheingold, 1993; O’Reilly, 2005; Stephens, 2007; Zuppo, 2012). Accordingly, war may have various defnitions within social media: Firstly, a social media war may mean a public disagreement on a certain question which is outrageously debated using social media ( e.g. Woolston, 2015). Secondly, and more indirectly, a social media war may also describe a fght between two or more opposing social media services themselves ( e.g. Ganahl, 2013). Thirdly, the complex and quite well-known case of using social media as a toolset for history, memory, propaganda or even as a weapon in the manner of symmetric and asymmetric warfare – has to be considered too ( e.g. Comunello, Anzera, 2012; Jones, Baines, 2013; van Niekerk, Maharaj, 2013; Farwell, 2014; Klausen, 2014; Lawson, 2014; Lähteenmäki, Virta, 2016; Volume IX ● Issue 1/2018 ● Pages 7–20 *Corresponding author. E-mail: ArtiCle inFo Article history: Received: 2 nd January 2018Accepted: 4 th April 2018DOI: 10.24916/iansa.2018.1.1 Key words: digital archaeologypublic archaeologyinformation and communication technologiessocial mediaTwitterSketchfabResearchGateopen accessscience communicationdata dissemination AbStrACt Based on a case study, the paper analyses the possibilities of social media as a tool for science communication in the context of information and communication technology (ICT) usage in archaeology. Aside from discussing the characteristics of digital archaeology, the social networking sites (SNS) Twitter, Sketchfab, and ResearchGate are integrated into a digital research data dissemination tool. As a result, above-average engagement rates with few impressions were observed. Compared with that, status updates focusing on actual feldwork and other research activities gain high numbers of impressions with below-average engagement rates. It is believed that most of the interactions are restricted to a core audience and that a clearly defned social media strategy is obligatory for successful research data dissemination in archaeology, combined with regular posts in the SNS. Additionally, active followers are of highest importance.
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2018 ● IX/1 ● 7–20Dominik Hagmann: Refections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology 8 Patrikarakos, 2017). Social media wars also occur in the free web-based social messaging and microblogging service twitter , which is used to send short posts (so-called tweets ) with originally 140 characters and (since November 2017) 280 characters in some countries ( e.g. Rosen, 2017; Richardson, 2012; 2015; Williams, Krause, 2012, pp. 105–113).Originally, it is likely that Twitter wars (in their broadest sense) have become a digital phenomenon in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian confict, and thus became known to a wider public during 2012 (Ball, 2013), considering the role of social media in modern warfare (Sutter, 2012). Hence Twitter war initially belongs to the above-mentioned third defnition, incorporating the metaphysical meanings of real and virtual war, but may have adopted additional meanings besides. Thus, a Twitter war may also belong to the frst type of social media war. In today’s Twitter lingo (slang) a twitter war may describe in detail a quick public dialogue based on tweets between at least two parties for several hours. The parties involved are addressing each other mainly using the so-called retweet- ( rt ) as well as replies- ( replying to ) and mentions-functions ( @ ) on Twitter (Twitter, 2017a; 2017b).A quick review of last months’ tweets mentioning the combined terms “Twitter” and “war” reveals the characteristics of a Twitter war in general (Twitter, 2017d). Twitter wars seem to be declared by either one of the two parties or even a third party without following any formal rules. Through simply announcing an explicit statement as well as directly mentioning the other party/parties, the Twitter war starts. Here, one party refers to a certain position while the other party/parties take/s an opposite one. The other party/parties respond/s to this statement with a similar but difering statement more or less immediately. Afterwards, the frst party responds again, etc . Other recipients of the dialogue within this Twitter war can comment on individual tweets and may therefore be addressed by the opponents afterwards. This special type of discussion may be conducted as friendly banter but also as a serious debate, depending on the parties involved.Regarding the rhetoric of Twitter users, #twitterwar as well as #twitterWar, #twitterwar, and #tWitterWAr are used, although the term may be also used without any hashtag ( e.g. Kehrberg, 2015; Twitter, 2017d). A hashtag thereby serves as a freely defnable visual emphasis of the particular word, as well as a linking tag inside the service that enables users to flter the millions of diferent messages based on a selected keyword by just clicking on it or searching for it ( e.g. Bruns et al. , 2016; Enli, Simonsen, 2017; Small, 2011; Twitter, 2017c).The main reason to start a Twitter war may be to stimulate public attention on a large scale. Furthermore, a Twitter war is a social media marketing strategy which gains the attention of customers for all parties involved. It is important that only equal competitors start a Twitter war and that the involved parties treat each other with respect during the whole confrontation (Alaimo, 2017). Otherwise a Twitter war could quickly become something else, like a case of internet “trolling”, i.e. the attempt to provoke the counterpart and to outrage him/her, or even faming (e.g. Kohn, 2015). Additionally, Twitter itself sometimes encourages such activities ( e.g. @TwitterNotify, 2017). Users may further formerly invite or provoke each other to start a Twitter war through using a matching hashtag in a corresponding post, although this kind of request usually would not have the desired efect.An example of a Twitter war is the “confict” between Denmark and Sweden in 2016: On July 7 th , a Twitter war broke out between the Danish Foreign Ministry and the Swedish Institute and lasted for several hours (@denmarkdotdk, 2017; @swendense, 2017). It all started when the Danish Foreign Ministry quoted a post from the Swedish Institute about special aspects of Swedish taste in interior decoration, which primarily was meant for the amusement of the Swedish Twitter community (@denmarkdotdk, 2016b; Podhovnik, 2016; @swendense, 2016b). The Swedes responded to that tweet, then the Danes countered and the whole conversation culminated into an alternating struggle for amusement (@denmarkdotdk, 2016a; @swendense, 2016c). As the Swedish Institute stated during the discussion repetitively, the whole conversation was meant as “friendly rivalry” (@swendense, 2016a).All in all, a Twitter war may be one concept (among others) of gaining attention of a vast group of interested users as a frst step to sell one’s product to this target group. It is a specialised marketing strategy which uses digital information and communication technology (ICT) to gain success in getting noticed. ICT is more important than ever nowadays, mainly due to the high availability of the internet in many parts of the world, although a serious digital divide still exists (Cancro, 2016; Mano, 2012, pp. 30–31; Walker, 2014). Nevertheless, ICT has a very serious impact on society, and thus the efect of ICT on archaeology can also be observed ( e.g. Henson, 2013).The strategy presented here may be settled in a more passive setting and Twitter wars are hard to fnd in the feld of archaeology. Maybe the archaeological Twitter community is too small and homogenous, or “big players” within this community are not big enough for occurrences like Twitter wars to appear regularly in archaeology. Considering the wider feld of cultural heritage management, a recent example from digital museology may be the Twitter war of two British museums in 2017: On September 13 th , in the course of the #AskACurator -campaign by Mar Dixon, another Twitter war occurred between the Science Museum and Natural History Museum in Great Britain, because of the question posed by Twitter user Bednarz O’Connell regarding which museum would have the best exhibition (@bednarz, 2017a, 2017b; Dixon, 2013). While this Twitter war was actually started by an individual non-museologist, there are concepts which try to facilitate mutual as well as pluralistic activities on Twitter in archaeology, like the frst CAA Twitter Conference (#CAATCO 2018). Furthermore, it is questionable whether an active and possibly even aggressive marketing concept like that conducted during a Twitter war is suitable for archaeology.
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2018 ● IX/1 ● 7–20Dominik Hagmann: Refections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology 9 This paper seeks to evaluate the role of SNS regarding their function as platforms for science communication in the context of digital archaeology ( e.g. Kansa et al. , 2012; Watkins, 2016). In contrast to a Twitter war, the general concept presented here is, in a sense, passive, because although information is actively disseminated, it must also be received by other Twitter users who are not actively involved. A Twitter war, however, is active in all aspects, as not only information is disseminated, but other users are also actively involved. Founded on the evaluation of a case study, it is examined whether it is necessary to start a Twitter war to successfully disseminate information in archaeology. To do so, recent Twitter data received from an ofcial university’s account will be analysed. 2. Digital archaeology Digital archaeology itself is an integral part of today’s archaeological practice and a broad area encompassing various aspects, methods, and ideas ( e.g. Hagmann, 2017a; 2017b; 2017f; Langendorf et al. , 2017; Morgan, Eve, 2012; Trognitz et al. , 2017). However, digital archaeology seems to be neither an archaeological sub-discipline nor its own specialisation, but rather a pool of diferent theoretical and practical aspects of information technology and their corresponding applications within archaeology (Costopoulos, 2016; Huggett, 2017). Applying digital methods in archaeology expands the possibilities of creating insights and generating knowledge (Zubrow, 2006). In this sense, Zubrow (2006) defnes digital archaeology as the usage of “[…] future technology to understand past behaviour […]”. Therefore, theory and practice of combined digital input, digital information management, digital analysis, and digital publication are immanent for digital archaeology.In regard to the above, Daly and Evans (2006) mention in their fundamental compilation about digital archaeology that this feld of study “[…] explores the basic relationships that archaeologists have with Information and Communication Technology […]” – a situation, which may be also found in the digital humanities ( e.g. Jannidis et al. , 2017). The relationship between archaeology and ICT, as well as the term digital archaeology itself, have diferent names, such as archaeological informatics ( Archäoinformatik in some German-speaking countries), cyber archaeology, virtual archaeology , and so on ( e.g. Djindjian, 2015; Hookk, 2016; Levy, 2014; Reilly, 1990). There are no clear-cut borders and, according to Grosman (2016), one can state that the varying nomenclature is due to “many groups of scientists worldwide, [which] almost concurrently recognized the immense power of computer technology”. Additional digital neighbouring “disciplines” also exist, such as the highly independent, do-it-yourself and mainly self-funded punk archaeology , as well as digital geoarchaeology , digital history , digital literary history , digital musicology , or digital philology ( e.g. Ghilardi, Desruelles, 2009; Graham et al. , 2016; Gregory, 2014; Murrieta-Flores et al. , 2017; Nichols, Altschul, 2012; Pugin, 2015; Richardson, 2017; Schofeld, 2017; Siart et al. , 2017).Depending on one’s personal defnition of archaeology , digital archaeology may be defned – at least in a taxonomic view – as an integral part of the digital humanities ( e.g. Burdick, 2012; Warwick et al. , 2012). However, it seems difcult to treat digital archaeology and digital humanities as equivalent ( e.g. Reiche et al. , 2014): considering the research history of both felds, it seems that there are only a few points of interaction between digital humanities and digital archaeology. Indeed, digital archaeology may have evolved nearly on its own (Thaller, 2017b; Zubrow, 2006, pp. 12–21). At most, these two felds have only merged recently through individual projects which ofer a few zones of overlap ( e.g. dha, 2017; Kaplan, 2015). Actually, digital humanities mainly seem to encompass varying methods of digital text analysis in the broadest sense, the development and usage of various database applications, open access, studies in metadata, image classifcation research, as well as long term data archiving ( e.g. Bair, Carlson, 2008; Berry, 2012; DHd, 2018 Köln, 2017; Diao, Hernández, 2014; Funkhouser et al. , 2011; Manovich, 2012; Röhle, 2012; Thaller, 2017a). In this case, one should question if incorporating digital archaeology into digital humanities would not solely be a matter of taxonomy, regarding their highly diverse characteristics and the role of interdisciplinarity in archaeology ( e.g. CAA International, 2017; Hirst, 2008). However, if one defnes archaeology as a social science instead of assigning it to the humanities or cultural studies, these interconnections may be completely altered again (Smith et al. , 2012).Comparing digital archaeology and digital geoarchaeology may show that these diferent digital “disciplines” are more formally divided than they practically are. Recently, it was claimed that the use of digital methods and applications derived from geomatics in an archaeological context would defne digital geoarchaeology (Siart et al. , 2017). Nonetheless, spatial analysis using geographic information systems (GIS), for example, is inherent to archaeology, geology, geomatics, geoarchaeology, digital geoarchaeology, as well as digital archaeology ( e.g. Djindjian, 1998; Schörner, Hagmann, 2015; Verhagen, 2017; Zubrow, 2006, pp. 16–21). In other words, it should be considered if it is even possible to make a precise distinction between a geoarchaeologist and a digital archaeologist while they are doing feldwork and using GIS. So, it seems that such a defnition might be valid only if rigid boundaries are defned between these diferent felds – a state that is quite atypical for archaeology ( e.g. Sinclair, 2016). Moreover, the number of disciplines using even the same digital methods and tools is not limited to digital geoarchaeology and digital archaeology. For example, digital dissemination strategies such as open access publishing, repositories, wikis, blogs, photo and video platforms are of highest importance for digital archaeology as well as for nearly all other scientifc disciplines nowadays (Bauer et al. , 2015; Morgan, 2015; Richardson, 2017; Xia, 2012). Furthermore, the question is if an autonomous discipline arises because of the usage
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2018 ● IX/1 ● 7–20Dominik Hagmann: Refections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology 10 of digital methods. One must consider if topics like ICT in archaeology and the neighbouring branches require their own digital archaeological disciplines and sub-disciplines, or whether one should think of something else, especially considering previously neglected aspects (Huggett, 2015a; 2015b).Consequently, ICT seems to be situated in between all disciplines. So, digital archaeology as the theory and practice of the complex use of ICT throughout archaeology may be positioned more likely on a meta-level than being its own specialisation or discipline. The same can be assumed for digital zooarchaeology, digital Judaic studies, digital classics, etc. ( e.g. Betts et al. , 2011; Campbell, 2015; Schubert, 2015). One might therefore suggest that sophisticated digital practice based on ICT within a given specialisation creates the corresponding digital meta-discipline. 3. Research data dissemination As mentioned above, social media have an important role in today’s society and in archaeology ( e.g. Gennaro, 2015; Richardson, 2014; Rocks-Macqueen, 2016; Sedlacik, 2015; Laracuente, 2016; Wolf, 2017). Twitter, especially, can be regarded as an infuential SNS, serving as a platform for individual messaging as well as for elaborate science communication. Innovative projects like the Public Archaeology twitter Conference show the high potential of this service for science communication (#PATC 2017).Diferent kinds of social media, such as microblogging services like Twitter, and research networks like, can be integrated for more efective outreach, for example to enhance public reception of a newly published research paper ( e.g. Shuai et al. , 2012; Thelwall, Kousha, 2014). Going one step further, the combination of the various abilities of social media can create a holistic digital scientifc communication tool. Thus, it is a question of the integration of diferent kinds of social media to form an interactive tool for archaeological research data dissemination with all its innovations, advantages, disadvantages and problems ( e.g. Perry, Beale, 2015; Huvila, 2013). research data may be defned here as every kind of digital information available in archaeology, including digital objects like texts, tables, and photos, as well as ready-made publications such as research papers and monographies (Brin et al. , 2013). Such a digital archaeological communication tool is settled at a point of disciplinary intersection and strongly overlaps with public archaeology “[…] viewed through the lens of the internet” (Lake, 2012, p. 476). So, the role this tool plays in digital research data dissemination should also be considered ( e.g. Denning, 2004; Miles, 2004). The tool may be used online, (mainly) without restriction world-wide, interactively, and may be comprised of numerous forms of social media, such as online wikis, blogs, photo as well as video platforms, and social networks ( e.g. Scholz, 2017). Because of its bidirectional nature, the tool allows enhanced use and reuse of data made available on open access and other online repositories and the sustainable publication of the meta-data via the internet, enabling a public digital discourse and evaluation of the data (Kansa et al. , 2014; Niyazov et al. , 2016). Through these means, the idea of open science or, more precisely, open archaeology, can be realised (Lake, 2012; Morgan, Eve, 2012; Zhu, Purdam, 2017).Due to the heterogenous characteristics of social media, the SNS used should be chosen precisely: for example, Instagram, a (primarily) mobile application, mainly focuses on photos, videos, and GIFs and is mostly used as a sophisticated marketing tool for individuals as well as for organisations in various felds ( e.g. Firsching, 2017; Moon et al. , 2016; Sheldon, Bryant, 2016). Controversially, however, this SNS is even used for e-commerce and trafcking of cultural heritage, including human remains (Hufer, Graham, 2017). Apart from this, Instagram is not perfectly suitable for archaeological research data dissemination. For instance, there is currently only the possibility of adding non-clickable hyperlinks in combination with a single post. Without using paid features or additional applications, clickable hyperlinks are available on one’s so-called bio ( i.e. personal account description) only (Kobilke, 2016).Twitter is arguably a more important tool for information dissemination and communication. Posts are received very directly and can reach wide audiences and gain numerous interactions within a very short time. Not surprisingly, Twitter is also extensively used in several scientifc disciplines aside from archaeology. Here, Twitter is mainly used for information dissemination, but also serves as a data source for diferent types of Big Data analysis ( e.g. Cavanillas et al. , 2016). Disciplines like economics, medicine, educational research, or architecture, as well as professionals like journalists, are using Twitter and its data, based on the interactions of hundreds of thousands of users and millions of data-sets to examine numerous kinds of research questions. Examples include optimised customer service conversations, the behaviour of people with traumatic brain injuries, or urban land-use ( e.g. Ahmad, 2010; Evans, 2014; Oraby et al. , 2017; Soliman et al. , 2017; Vobič et al. , 2016; Workewych et al. , 2017). 4. Methodology Twitter is a suitable tool for specialised research data dissemination, using hyperlinks, one of the most essential components of the internet (Berners-Lee et al. , 1994; Berners-Lee, 1997). One of these workfows is described through a basic example here: a 3D model of trench 2/2014 from the Roman excavation at Molino San Vincenzo in Tuscany/Italy was uploaded to the 3D content sharing platform Sketchfab (Hagmann et al. , 2015; Lloyd, 2016; Sketchfab, 2017). The model, hosted on this platform, was embedded in a tweet: one can view the embedded model interactively within the tweet or follow the reference to Sketchfab (@rrl_univie, 2017c; Hagmann, Reiter, 2016c). Additional information is provided there too and ofers further content
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2018 ● IX/1 ● 7–20Dominik Hagmann: Refections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology 11 through linking to other webpages, for example, the overall-project website, Google Maps, the website of the excavation project itself, or the author’s personal homepage (Dominik Hagmann, 2017; Google Maps, 2017; Molino San Vincenzo, 2017; Roman Rural Landscapes, 2017). Importantly, the data of the 3D model is provided on ResearchGate as a data repository and linked to the model (Hagmann, Reiter, 2016a; 2016b; Kowalczyk, 2014; Thelwall, Kousha, 2015). The data can be retrieved as 3D geometries (COLLADA) and textures (JPEG) and all fles are citable through digital object identifers (DOIs; Agisoft PhotoScan, 2017; COLLADA, 2017; JPEG, 2017; DOI, 2017). ResearchGate is used in this special case as a repository mainly because of the high level of awareness of this platform within the scientifc community and the possibility of assigning DOIs to digital resources. Long-term data archiving will be performed using the institutional repository Phaidra of the University of Vienna, and it is easy to link the digital objects on ResearchGate and Phaidra (Borrego, 2017; Jefrey, 2012; Nicholas et al. , 2016; Solodovnik, Budroni, 2015; Thelwall, Kousha, 2017; Yu et al. , 2016). The mentioned websites have a (mostly) barrier-free, responsive web design and there are mobile applications for devices like smartphones and tablets available ( e.g. Bernacki et al. , 2016; Kerkmann, Lewandowski, 2015). These technical specifcations also help to dissolve the digital divide, at least partially.At the Department of Classical Archaeology at the University of Vienna, selected (scientifc) social media platforms are used for digital public outreach. Twitter serves as an ofcial channel for various forms of science communication pertaining to the research activities of a newly established and specialised cluster of projects called Roman Rural Landscapes (RRL). These projects mainly focus on settlements in the Mediterranean and Central European countryside during ancient times ( e.g. Banks et al. , 2017; Gabellone, 2015; Pinfeld et al. , 2014; Papmehl-Dufay, Söderström, 2017; Richardson, Dixon, 2017; Rocks-Macqueen, 2016; Williams, Atkin, 2015; Zuanni, 2017).Within this framework, Twitter activities started on May 15 th , 2017, operated by the author. On December 22 nd , 2017, the account had a quite small audience of 165 followers. The data-set analysed below is formed by the contents and metrics of all tweets (n=46) from June 1 st to September 22 nd , 2017, retrieved from Twitter Analytics between July 31 st and November 10 th , 2017 (Hagmann, 2017c; Twitter Analytics, 2017). The account had 145 followers during this time (averaged due to slight fuctuations). The tweets mainly contained various status updates with associated scientifc background. 21 tweets within this period were themed to the excavation project Molino San Vincenzo and thus represent the majority of the posts (Hagmann et al. , 2015). Therefore, two additional data-sets (obtained from Twitter Analytics on September 9 th and October 12 th , 2017), representing the subset of the excavation-related tweets described above, containing all tweets (n=23) from the period August 2 nd to August 30 th , 2017 are also analysed (Hagmann, 2017d, 2017e). Descriptive analysis was performed on selected qualitative and quantitative aspects of these Twitter metrics ( e.g. Bol, 2010): aside from the published content of the tweet as text, general technical details like the unique identifcation number of the tweet or the permanent URI are among them. Further aspects, like the timestamp or the number of times how often embedded media (photos, videos, GIFs, embedded models etc. ) within the tweet were shared with other Twitter users were regarded too. Attention was paid to the number of times the tweet was shown to a Twitter user ( i.e. impressions ), as well as the interactions ( i.e. engagements ), and the engagement rate ( i.e. the impressions divided by the engagements). For their part, the engagements are composed of various kinds of special actions, like retweets, replies, likes, profle clicks, link clicks, hashtag clicks, detail expands, and media interactions (Twitter, 2017e). No paid Twitter Ads campaigns for increasing the performances of the tweets through promotion were used – only so-called organic activities are considered (@buster, 2014; Twitter, 2017f). Aside from simple calculations, the standard deviation (std. dev.) as well as the arithmetic mean and median were calculated using MS Excel (Excel, 2017a; 2017b; 2017c). MS Excel and Adobe Illustrator were used for the visualisation of the data and for generating the charts (Adobe, 2017; Microsoft, 2017). The datasets are licensed under a CC BY 4.0 International License (Creative Commons, 2017). 5. Results During the period of 114 days, 46 tweets were posted, which means 1 tweet per c. 2.5 days on average (Figure 1): 11 tweets were posted in June, 7 tweets in July, 25 tweets in August and 3 tweets from September 1 st to 22 nd , 2017. The tweets have 609.2 (std. dev. 1140.8) impressions on average, with a minimum of 75 and a maximum of 5497 impressions per tweet. The average number of engagements is 12.1 (std. dev. 14.1) with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 82 (Figure 2). The average engagement rate is 0.03 (std. dev. 0.01), or 3%, with a minimum value of 0.004 (0.4%) and a maximum value of 0.08, respectively 8% (Figure 3). The median engagement rate is 0.03 (3%) (Hagmann, 2017c).Comparable values can be observed for the subset of tweets (n=23) from August 2017, which were received from Twitter Analytics on September 4 th , 2017 (Figure 4): per tweet, 784.7 (std. dev. 1349.9) impressions are recorded, with a minimum of 105 and a maximum of 5497 shares. On average, the tweets have 16.0 (std. dev. 18.1) engagements (minimum: 2, maximum: 82) and a mean engagement rate of 0.03 (std. dev. 0.01), also 3%. The minimum average engagement rate is 0.004 (0.4%), the median engagement rate is 0.03 (3%), the maximum average engagement rate-value is 0.08 (8%) (Hagmann, 2017d).Regarding impressions and engagements, the most successful tweet, no. 892754365618028544, was published on August 2 nd , 2017. It is an informal status update mentioning the preparations for the 2017 season at Molino San Vincenzo in Tuscany. The message gained 5497 impressions and
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2018 ● IX/1 ● 7–20Dominik Hagmann: Refections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology 12