# A Method for Assessing the Performance of e-Government Twitter Accounts
## 5 Findings
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \begin{tabular}{c} **Famous Words** \\ **Total Effective** \\ **Rach** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Tweets per** \\ **Day** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Followers** \\ **per Day** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Tweets** \\ **Tweets** \\ **Tweets** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Ego In Degree** \\ **Normalized** \\ **Betweenness** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Ego Normalized** \\ **Asortativity** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Asortativity** \\ **Skewness** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Belgium finance & 1600 & 4785 & 0.28 & 2.51 & 136 & 0.01088 & 0.000004 & \(-0.46\) & 4.20 \\ Belgium foreign affairs & 1058 & 22,297 & 1.46 & 3.67 & 121 & 0.0113 & 0.000004 & \(-0.47\) & 3.71 \\ Poland foreign affairs & 6282 & 73,038 & 4.96 & 7.99 & 2779 & 0.00063 & 0.00001 & \(-0.46\) & 11.16 \\ Greece development & 5442 & 22,197 & 3.39 & 6.89 & 737 & 0.00249 & 0.00001 & \(-0.31\) & 3.11 \\ Germany environment & 6480 & 48,104 & 1.48 & 16.60 & 261 & 0.00546 & 0.00011 & \(-0.51\) & 15.56 \\ Poland education & 1082 & 10,125 & 0.37 & 1.95 & 185 & 0.009 & 0.000005 & \(-0.48\) & 2.81 \\ Germany foreign affairs & 4755 & 42,476 & 1.38 & 14.14 & 287 & 0.00296 & 0.000001 & \(-0.22\) & 4.46 \\ Finland environment & 2236 & 7509 & 0.75 & 3.40 & 755 & 0.00022 & 0.00004 & \(-0.66\) & 3.54 \\ Greece education & 1969 & 1376 & 4.70 & 2.26 & 7529 & 0.00198 & 0 & 1.07 \\ Greece environment & 3189 & 11,322 & 1.30 & 4.62 & 536 & 0.00266 & 0 & \(-0.39\) & 2.28 \\ Estonia foreign affairs & 1410 & 2110 & 0.14 & 1.09 & 397 & 0.00273 & 0 & 1.07 \\ Romania development & 152 & 1724 & 1.23 & 0.22 & 581 & 0.00823 & 0 & 0.38 \\ Poland development & 646 & 22,551 & 1.59 & 2.33 & 45 & 0.00576 & 0.00025 & \(-0.81\) & 1.25 \\ Poland health & 1327 & 7545 & 0.15 & 3.36 & 85 & 0.0037 & 0.000047 & \(-0.58\) & 1.82 \\ Bulgaria foreign affairs & 2022 & 243 & 1.09 & 2.75 & 648 & 0.0047 & 0.00001 & \(-0.61\) & 3.55 \\ Latvia foreign affairs & 213 & 2800 & 0.52 & 0.48 & 402 & 0 & 0 & \(-0.58\) & 0.60 \\ Greece health & 1777 & 208 & 0.00 & 1.16 & 51 & 0.00095 & 0 & \(-0.50\) & 0.00 \\ Spain foreign affairs & 354 & & 0.00 & 1.32 & 0 & 0.00434 & 0.00001 & & 0.38 \\ Romania foreign affairs & 1467 & 2594 & 0.02 & 0.35 & 1863 & 0.00053 & 0 & \\ Finland health & 38 & & 0.08 & 0.05 & 48 & 0 & 0 & \\ Greece finance & 11 & & 0.00 & 0.03 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: _Cont._Regarding activity/popularity, the ministries of finance and economy of Latvia and foreign affairs of Finland have better rankings. Regarding community formation, the ministry of environment of Spain, education of Netherlands, foreign affairs of Italy and foreign affairs of Netherlands, come first. To explore how the three PC are distributed, and to distinguish the accounts that excel in every PC, three diagrams are constructed. Each one presents a scatterplot of the relative PC against its ranks. In Figure 1 the \"activity/popularity\" PC against its ranks is presented. One account is very distinct and is placed far right on the \(x\)-axis. Next, six more accounts are placed on its left and have the next best ranks. These are the accounts of UK foreign affairs (first), and UK education, UK development, Finland foreign affairs, UK finance, Latvia economy, Latvia finance (see Table 4). The UK seems to lead on using Twitter services, and Finland and Latvia follow having good scores. Figure 2 presents the scatterplot of the second PC \"centrality\" against its ranks. Two accounts seem to be very distinct in the first two places and three more follow. These are Slovenia's foreign affairs (first) ministry, Latvia's education ministry, Sweden's foreign affairs ministry, Ireland's education ministry, and Italy's environment ministry. These accounts are placed first regarding how central they are compared to others in the m/r networks, where citizens mention or reply to the ministries to a higher degree in comparison to how much they generally mention or reply.