• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Trend Makers and Trend Spotters in a Mobile Application
 

Trend Makers and Trend Spotters in a Mobile Application

on

  • 1,355 views

WHO creates trends in a mobile sharing app? accidentals or influentials?

WHO creates trends in a mobile sharing app? accidentals or influentials?
Answer: influentials DO exist, yet they are not few but many!
http://profzero.org/publications/trend13sha.pdf

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,355
Views on SlideShare
741
Embed Views
614

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

5 Embeds 614

http://profzero.org 590
http://www.profzero.org 10
http://researchswinger.org 10
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk 3
http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Trend Makers and Trend Spotters in a Mobile Application Trend Makers and Trend Spotters in a Mobile Application Presentation Transcript

    • Trend Makers and Trend Spotters in a Mobile Application Xiaolan Sha◦ Daniele Quercia• Pietro Michiardi◦ Matteo Dell’Amico◦ ◦EURECOM •Yahoo! Research Barcelona
    • Who create trends?
    • Two-Step FlowMass Media Influentials Normal
    • 444 Accidental Influentials JOURNAL OF CON FIGURE 2 of these assumptions is demonstrabl clearly correct either—the empirical ev SCHEMATIC OF NETWORK MODEL OF INFLUENCE inconclusive. Thus we will also presen variations of the basic model that relax and the randomness assumptions. Another advantage of formally defi work, even with such a simple mod define more precisely what we mea Previous empirical work has address should be considered influential, b mains elusive (Weimann 1991). Clas of Coleman et al. (1957) and Merton individuals who directly influence m of their peers should be considered cent market research studies have co ber may be as high as 14 (Burson-M studies, by contrast, define influent terms: Keller and Berry (2003), fo fluentials as scoring in the top 10% ership test, while Coulter et al. (2002 treat the top 32% as influentials. Here we follow the latter approac ential as an individual in the top q% tribution p (n). From a theoretical pers value of q that we specify is necessa we have already argued that dichoto tween opinion leaders and followers a1 influence can only flow from opinion leaders to fol- derived nor empirically supported. Olowers, in figure 2, it can flow in either direction. Second, ever, is not to defend any particular din figure 2 influence can propagate for many steps, [D. Watts,but to examine the claim that influen P. Dodds JSTOR 2007]whereas in figure 1 it can propagate only two. We note, reasonable, self-consistent manner—however, that, in both cases, figure 2 is consistent with of diffusion processes. From this persavailable empirical evidence—arguably more so than fig- definition has the advantage (over dure 1. Numerous studies, including that of Katz and La- absolute numbers) that it can be app
    • Context
    • Dataset Users technology-savvy, design-conscious Pictures technology, lifestyle, music, design and fashion9,316 users uploaded 6,395 pictures and submitted 13,893 votes.
    • Identification Trends A simple burst detection method Spotters/Makers Spotter Score: how many, early, popular of the trends Maker Score: how often Typical UsersAll active users (>=2 votes/uploads) who is not spotter or a maker. 140 Makers; 671 Spotters; 1,705 Typical Users
    • Characterizations Features Activity Content Network Geographical Hypotheses [Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests] Spotters/Makers vs. Typical Users Spotters vs. Makers
    • ResultsSpotters/Makers vs. Typical users More active, more popular Spotters vs. Makers More votes, less uploads,wider spectrum of interests
    • Prediction Features { Activity Content Trend SpottersEvery User Social Network Trend Makers User Space Geography User Space
    • Predictors Follower Geo Span Upload Diversity Daily Uploads Vote Diversity Daily Votes Wandering #Followers #Followees Life Time Age Life Time 0.21 Activity Daily Uploads 0.02 -0.12 Daily Votes 0.05 -0.09 0.47 ⇤ Upload Diversity 0.02 0.09 0.40 ⇤ 0.08 Content Vote Diversity 0.04 0.08 0.22 0.08 0.42 ⇤ Wandering 0.004 0.13 0.16 0.11 0.06 0.05Geographical Follower Geo Span 0.05 0.12 0.16 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.23 #Followers 0.03 0.23 0.37 ⇤ 0.14 0.22 0.16 0.44 0.16 #Followees 0.05 0.17 0.52 ⇤ 0.31 ⇤ 0.29 ⇤ 0.22 0.56 ⇤ 0.21 0.64 ⇤ Network Network Clustering 0.03 0.13 0.22 0.04 0.24 0.23 -0.001 0.27 ⇤ 0.08 0.22 Spotter Score 0.07 0.18 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.04 0.07 0.13 0.11 0.15 Maker Score 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.10 Table 5. Pearson Correlation coefficients between each pair of predictors. Coefficients greater than ±0.25 with statistical significant level < 0.05 are marked with a ⇤. Practical Implications CONCLUSION The ability of identifying trend spotters and trend makers has A community is an emergent system. It forms from the ac- implications in designing recommender systems, marketing tions of its members who are reacting to each other’s behav- campaigns, new products, privacy tools, and user interfaces. ior. Here we have studied a specific community of individuals who are passionate about sharing pictures of items (mainly Recommender Systems. Every user has different interests fashion and design items) using a mobile phone application. and tastes and, as such, might well benefit from personalized This community has a specific culture in which a set of habits, suggestions of content. These suggestions are automatically attitudes and beliefs guide how its members behave. In it, we produced by so-called “recommender systems”. Typically,
    • PredictionTrue positive rate 0.8 S-logistic 0.4 S-svm M-logistic M-svm 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 False positive rate
    • y trend spot- Age 2e-04 0.001 preliminary Life Time 0.006 * 0.001 *ers opens up Successful Spotters/Makers Daily Votes (Daily Uploads) 0.007 * 0.16 *ferences be- Vote Diversity (Upload Diversity) 0.38 * 0.14 * Wandering -6e-15 -7e-15 #Followers 2e-05 0.009 * Network Clustering 0.08 0.28 * no previous spotters andl hypotheses (b) Linear Regressioner that trend Features log(Score) tend to vote Spotters Makerscompared to Age 0.36 * 0.01 (H3.1), vote Life Time 0.19 * 0.0001 Daily Votes (Daily Uploads) 0.16 - -1.03 * ote more di- Vote Diversity (Upload Diversity) 7.28 * - -1.09 * ). After run- Wandering -2.1e-13 -1.4e-15nd that trend #Followers -0.06 0.01 * ers who, by Network Clustering 2.75 - -0.64 *oth H3.1 and R2 0.15 0.65 ote, we find Adjusted R2 0.14 0.64oad and vote s vote items kers act in a Table 3. Coefficients of the linear regression. A correlation coefficientd in [20, 18] within 2 standard errors is considered statistically significant. We high- light and mark them with *.ality content. items in the le they vote of followees, daily uploads, daily votes, and content diver- de spectrum
    • Summary Successful Spotters Early adopters who vote items from various categories. Successful MakersUsers who upload items belonging to specific categories, tend to be followed by users from different social clusters.
    • Conclusions Who Create Trends?Regular individual with specific interests connected with early adopters with diverse interests.
    • Questions?