by calicon » Wed May 15, 2013 10:30 pm
Did no one read that it was normalized by number of tweets? It's got nothing to do with population density, heck, look at the Los Angeles or Bay area to see that it's not a function of population density. It's a relative measure, not an absolute one. Strictly speaking, it doesn't speak of populations, merely of the population of twitter users, which may or may not (probably the latter) be a decent proxy of the population at large.