The question : Do links posted on Facebook last longer than they do on twitter?
To do this Bit.y performed analysis of over 1,000 URL links to determine their half life - " the amount of time at which this link will receive half of the clicks it will ever receive after it’s reached its peak " - in effect, it's shelf life.
The analysis encompassed the following Online channels - Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Email/Instant messenger. They showed that linked published via YouTube had almost double the "shelf life" than via other channels, with Facebook/Twitter and Email all having similar dynamics for published links.
Initially I assumed this was due to the time on site for users being higher for YouTube VS Facebook, with this increased time on site translating to links posted on the site being "live" for longer. However a quick check on Alexa showed this not to be the case.
Is this down to engagement levels on the sites, with YouTube having a more lean back audience and therefore more open to the suggestion of a click through or engagement opportunity, or due to Facebook with it's more immediate interactivity and higher volumes of change resulting in links becoming redundant faster?
Disasters VS Kittens
Certain content types showed high initial click-through volume with steep 'tail off' - news articles.
Other content types while having lower volumes, had a longer 'shelf life' with clicks being registered over a longer time period - Kitten's and furry animals. Regardless of the channel where they were posted.
Content type rather than channel seems to determine the lifespan of the link
Content types that have an immediacy and a relevance that is dependent on time, decay faster than those which could be deemed as 'general'
That YouTube offers and interesting challenge to the channel question, why should YouTube keep links 'live' for twice as long as the other, higher time on site / higer engagement channels.
original post here : link