Eir effectiveness in achieving objectives. By analysing user behaviours in detail, in purchase Rocaglamide particular when social media posts were wellreceived, an organization can evaluate the effectiveness of social media content and whether it is in line with its strategic objectives, thus helping to shape future content.CERN’s Social Media PlatformsThis study focused on a sub-set of five of CERN’s social media platforms: Two Twitter accounts (in English and in French); Facebook, Google+ and Instagram (LinkedIn and YouTube were not included because the regularity and content of posts on these platforms does not match the others). Each platform differs in audience numbers and demographics, detailed in Table 2.MethodologyForty-eight (48) different topics, each featuring a unique image (e.g. an illustration or photograph), were (cross-)posted on five of CERN’s social media platforms over eight weeks in 2014 (17 October?11 December). Each topic belonged to one of the following four categories: (1) News, (2) “Guess What It Is” (GWII), which featured mysterious images (e.g. images of unusual scientific instruments), (3) “Throwback Thursday” (TBT), which featured historical images, and (4) “Wow”, featuring awe-inspiring images. Items (i.e., Facebook statuses, Twitter tweets,PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0156409 May 27,5 /Engagement with Particle Physics on CERN’s Social Media PlatformsTable 2. Demographics of the Audience on Each Platform. Data recorded during the data collection period 17 October?11 December 2014. Platform Audience at start of data collection Audience at end of data collection Gender F / M Age 13?7 (F / M ) 1 Age 18?4 (F / M ) 1 Age 25?4 (F / M ) 1 Age 35?4 (F / M ) 1 Age 45?4 (F / M ) 1 Age 55?4 (F / M ) 1 Age 65+ (F / M ) 1 Top 5 countries of AZD1722 custom synthesis originFacebook 343K 367K 31.3 / 68.7 0.9 / 3 3.7 / 11 9.1 / 21.1 8.8 / 17.9 6.5 / 11.9 1.6 / 2.8 0.6 / 1.1 USA, India, UK, Italy, TurkeyTwitter English 1.03M 1.06M 29.9 / 70.1 0.8 / 2.8 4 / 11 7.7 / 21.5 9.4 / 17.8 5.9 / 12.7 1.5 / 3.2 0.6 / 1.1 USA, UK, Italy, Spain, SwitzerlandTwitter French 12.2K 12.6K 41.5 / 58.5 1.3 / 2 5.7 / 8.3 10.6 / 17.8 10.5 / 14.6 9.8 / 11.4 2.7 / 3.2 0.9 / 1.2 France, Switzerland, Canada, Belgium, USAGoogle+ 104K 110K 29 / 71 1 / 2.9 4.8 / 10.7 8.2 / 21.3 7.7 / 18.1 5.2 / 13 1.5 / 3.7 0.6 / 1.3 Ukraine, USA, India, Denmark, UKInstagram 100 1.19K 37.9 / 62.1 1.6 / 2.8 5.9 / 11.8 12.6 / 19.7 10.1 / 14.5 5.8 / 9.6 1.6 / 2.6 0.4 / 1 US, Italy, UK, France, Turkeyof the total percentage of that genderdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0156409.tetc.) relating to each topic were posted on one or more of these platforms. Example items are provided in Fig 1. In most cases, but not all, topics were cross-posted on all five platforms. In total, this yielded 214 items (Table 3). For all platforms, each item contained either one or two links, yielding 225 links in total. Items on Instagram had inactive links in the text due to the technical constraints of the Instagram platform (nInstagram = 32). To follow a link, a user would have to copy-paste the text into a browser. (Table 4). Users of the respective platforms were either exposed to the items or not exposed to them, depending on their individual usage habits and the technical settings of the particular platform. Facebook, for example, uses an algorithm that filters what the audience sees in their news feed, such that “[o]f the 1,500+ stories a person might see whenever they log onto Facebook, News Feed displays approximately 300”.Eir effectiveness in achieving objectives. By analysing user behaviours in detail, in particular when social media posts were wellreceived, an organization can evaluate the effectiveness of social media content and whether it is in line with its strategic objectives, thus helping to shape future content.CERN’s Social Media PlatformsThis study focused on a sub-set of five of CERN’s social media platforms: Two Twitter accounts (in English and in French); Facebook, Google+ and Instagram (LinkedIn and YouTube were not included because the regularity and content of posts on these platforms does not match the others). Each platform differs in audience numbers and demographics, detailed in Table 2.MethodologyForty-eight (48) different topics, each featuring a unique image (e.g. an illustration or photograph), were (cross-)posted on five of CERN’s social media platforms over eight weeks in 2014 (17 October?11 December). Each topic belonged to one of the following four categories: (1) News, (2) “Guess What It Is” (GWII), which featured mysterious images (e.g. images of unusual scientific instruments), (3) “Throwback Thursday” (TBT), which featured historical images, and (4) “Wow”, featuring awe-inspiring images. Items (i.e., Facebook statuses, Twitter tweets,PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0156409 May 27,5 /Engagement with Particle Physics on CERN’s Social Media PlatformsTable 2. Demographics of the Audience on Each Platform. Data recorded during the data collection period 17 October?11 December 2014. Platform Audience at start of data collection Audience at end of data collection Gender F / M Age 13?7 (F / M ) 1 Age 18?4 (F / M ) 1 Age 25?4 (F / M ) 1 Age 35?4 (F / M ) 1 Age 45?4 (F / M ) 1 Age 55?4 (F / M ) 1 Age 65+ (F / M ) 1 Top 5 countries of originFacebook 343K 367K 31.3 / 68.7 0.9 / 3 3.7 / 11 9.1 / 21.1 8.8 / 17.9 6.5 / 11.9 1.6 / 2.8 0.6 / 1.1 USA, India, UK, Italy, TurkeyTwitter English 1.03M 1.06M 29.9 / 70.1 0.8 / 2.8 4 / 11 7.7 / 21.5 9.4 / 17.8 5.9 / 12.7 1.5 / 3.2 0.6 / 1.1 USA, UK, Italy, Spain, SwitzerlandTwitter French 12.2K 12.6K 41.5 / 58.5 1.3 / 2 5.7 / 8.3 10.6 / 17.8 10.5 / 14.6 9.8 / 11.4 2.7 / 3.2 0.9 / 1.2 France, Switzerland, Canada, Belgium, USAGoogle+ 104K 110K 29 / 71 1 / 2.9 4.8 / 10.7 8.2 / 21.3 7.7 / 18.1 5.2 / 13 1.5 / 3.7 0.6 / 1.3 Ukraine, USA, India, Denmark, UKInstagram 100 1.19K 37.9 / 62.1 1.6 / 2.8 5.9 / 11.8 12.6 / 19.7 10.1 / 14.5 5.8 / 9.6 1.6 / 2.6 0.4 / 1 US, Italy, UK, France, Turkeyof the total percentage of that genderdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0156409.tetc.) relating to each topic were posted on one or more of these platforms. Example items are provided in Fig 1. In most cases, but not all, topics were cross-posted on all five platforms. In total, this yielded 214 items (Table 3). For all platforms, each item contained either one or two links, yielding 225 links in total. Items on Instagram had inactive links in the text due to the technical constraints of the Instagram platform (nInstagram = 32). To follow a link, a user would have to copy-paste the text into a browser. (Table 4). Users of the respective platforms were either exposed to the items or not exposed to them, depending on their individual usage habits and the technical settings of the particular platform. Facebook, for example, uses an algorithm that filters what the audience sees in their news feed, such that “[o]f the 1,500+ stories a person might see whenever they log onto Facebook, News Feed displays approximately 300”.