Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Cikm2011 doallbirdstweetthesame
Similar to Cikm2011 doallbirdstweetthesame (20)
More from Ruth Garcia Gavilanes
More from Ruth Garcia Gavilanes (10)
Cikm2011 doallbirdstweetthesame
- 1. Do All Birds Tweet the Same? Characterizing Twitter around the World Barbara Poblete, Ruth García, Marcelo Mendoza and Alejandro Jaimes University of Chile, Yahoo! Research Barcelona Universitat Pompeu de Fabra, Universidad Federico Santa Maria October 26, 2011, Glasgow, CIKM
- 2. Objective Identify differences and similarities in the use of social media by analyzing tweets and network of friends in different countries.
- 3. What we did Ê Data: analysis of one year of Tweets for 10 most active countries ü Content: languages, sentiment, structure (retweets, hashtags,..) ü Structure: network (modularity, average path length, reciprocity, connectivity)
- 4. Crawling Strategy 12,964,735 active users -> 6,263,457 with valid location 4,736, 629 users belonging to 10 most active countries. 5,270,609,213 tweets during 2010 . 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% United States Brazil United Kingdom Japan Indonesia Canada México Netherlands South Korea Australia TWEETS(%) USERS(%)
- 5. Engagement 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Indonesia Japan Brazil Netherlands UK US Australia Mexico South Korea Canada (Tweets/User)
- 6. Languages 0 200,000,000 400,000,000 600,000,000 800,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,200,000,000 1,400,000,000 1,600,000,000 1,800,000,000 English Portuguese Japanese Spanish Dutch German Indonesian and Malay Korean Netherlands >10%, Indonesia >10%, Mexico >10%, South Korea >10%
- 7. How do Tweets differ in function? Macro average Country (Tweets/User) URL (%) Hashtag (%) Mention(%) Retweet(%) Indonesia 1813.53 14.95 7.63 58.24 9.71 Japan 1617.35 16.30 6.81 39.14 5.65 Brazil 1370.27 19.23 13.41 45.57 12.80 Netherlands 1026.44 24.40 18.24 42.33 9.12 UK 930.58 27.11 13.03 45.61 11.65 US 900.79 32.64 14.32 40.03 11.78 Australia 897.41 31.37 14.89 43.27 11.73 Mexico 865.70 17.49 12.38 49.79 12.61 South Korea 853.92 19.67 5.83 58.02 9.02 Canada 806.00 31.09 14.68 42.50 12.50
- 8. How do Tweets differ in function? Macro average Country (Tweets/User) URL (%) Hashtag (%) Mention(%) Retweet(%) Indonesia 1813.53 14.95 7.63 58.24 9.71 Japan 1617.35 16.30 6.81 39.14 5.65 Brazil 1370.27 19.23 13.41 45.57 12.80 Netherlands 1026.44 24.40 18.24 42.33 9.12 UK 930.58 27.11 13.03 45.61 11.65 US 900.79 32.64 14.32 40.03 11.78 Australia 897.41 31.37 14.89 43.27 11.73 Mexico 865.70 17.49 12.38 49.79 12.61 South Korea 853.92 19.67 5.83 58.02 9.02 Canada 806.00 31.09 14.68 42.50 12.50
- 9. How do Tweets differ in function? Macro average Country (Tweets/User) URL (%) Hashtag (%) Mention(%) Retweet(%) Indonesia 1813.53 14.95 7.63 58.24 9.71 Japan 1617.35 16.30 6.81 39.14 5.65 Brazil 1370.27 19.23 13.41 45.57 12.80 Netherlands 1026.44 24.40 18.24 42.33 9.12 UK 930.58 27.11 13.03 45.61 11.65 US 900.79 32.64 14.32 40.03 11.78 Australia 897.41 31.37 14.89 43.27 11.73 Mexico 865.70 17.49 12.38 49.79 12.61 South Korea 853.92 19.67 5.83 58.02 9.02 Canada 806.00 31.09 14.68 42.50 12.50
- 10. Happiness Level ENGLISH TWEETS SPANISH TWEETS 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Australia Brazil Canada Indonesia Japan Mexico Netherlands South Korea UK USA 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Dodds et al. “Temporal patters of happiness and information in a global social network: Hedonometrics and Twitter”, 2011
- 11. Network Coverage with regard to the initial complete graph Active nodes Edges within the same location
- 12. Modularity
- 13. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Brazil UK Mexico USA NetherlandsAustralia Canada Indonesia South_KoreaJapan Countries Diameter Avg. Path Length 13.49 17.22 17.27 18.91 22.11 23.51 26.11 26.79 28.14 32.01 (%)
- 15. Connectivity
- 16. Connectivity
- 17. Conclusions Ê Some use Twitter more for conversation and others for formal information dissemination (links of news, pics, etc). Ê Higher conversational level seems to be related to more happy tweets (less formality?). Ê Twitter networks seems to be less reciprocal and more hierarchical Ê Smaller networks tend to have more reciprocity Ê High reciprocity seems to lead to more activity per user Ê Reciprocity does not mean more connectivity: Indonesia has reciprocity in small communities with low connectivity among them
Editor's Notes
- As we all know Social Media is massively used for several purposes, in protests, by business , in work and for personas purposes. It has been reported that 145 million users login to Twitter every day , producing more than 90 million tweets per day. Increasng power of social Media : 1 billion users The web is changing. It’s no longer just a place for information seeking and shopping but a platformwhere connections are made, friendships formed and information and opinion exchanged.Social networks have become more embedded in our everyday lives, whether it’s Facebook, Orkut orLinkedIn, we now contact more people in our personal life through our social networks (our researchshows that on average we stay in contact socially with 52 people via these networks) than we dothrough any other means including face to face contact, email and phone.The new social web makes different demands on both consumers and advertisers. Consumers arenot merely finding, they are contributing; writing, uploading pictures, videos, creating regular statusupdates and livestreaming their every day happenings.It’s essential for brands to understand why and where different groups of consumers participate inthis new world. It’s not merely a question of identifying the best places to target – the classic mediaplanning/buying approach – but truly knowing what motivates them to be part of it.
- Prior work has shown that analysis of partial crawls of social networks can underestimate measures like degree distribution, but continue to preserve accuracy for other metric , such as density, reciprocity and connectivity. We believe that by preserving the active component of the graph, we are analyzing the most relevant part of the social structure. For the crawling we used the Twiter API (4J), collecting the list of followers-followees for each user.
- Order porcolumna
- Order porcolumnaSiting external sources ->
- Order porcolumna
- For some countries, reciprocity seems to be significant specially for Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan and Canada. Generally, the symetric nature of social ties affects network structure, sometimes increasing connectivty, and reducing the diameter. We can observe that communities with high clustering coefficient and less reciprocity may indicate more hierarchical type Relationships between users.
- Modularity, coefficient defined by Girvan and Newman, which evaluated how well a graph can be partitioned. A value of 0.4 or greater is generally considered meaningful. In our analysis we can appreciate that Indonesia and Canada display high modularity, which indicated that the communities found in these countriesAre more compact and closed than in other countries. On the contray, Mexico, South Korea and UK indicare less separation between their communities
- Indonesia presents the higher diameter, indicating that this network is very partitioned, which agrees with the modularity coefficient.We can also see that average path lengths are proportional to diameter values.( In general, the number of shortest paths is proportional to the number of edges in the graph. So for example, the countries with more edge coverage (USA; Brazil,, UK) have the higuest shortest paths values), We also seea direct relationship with reciprocity, in some countries large diameters also present high reciprocity such as indonesia. This suggests that graph structure strongly influences the relationship of diameter and reciprocity. So given our observationThat Indonesia had a high modularity, the large diameter supports the idea that this country has compact and isolated communities. On the other hand, Canada also shows a very significant modularity value but its diameter andaverage path length value are very Similar to countries that do not have a community structure. The main difference btw indonesia and canada is that the firstHas a lower clustering coeficient and density than the second.
- In this illustration it is interesting to observe that all countries concentrate their most isgnificantammount of links towards themselves, with the exception of Canada,Australia and UK, which connect to the US almost as much as to themselves
- MoreSelf Connected
- More connected
- Twitter seems to be used more as a conversation channel in certain countries in contrast to others such as USA where more formal communication seems to be used(links)Reciprocity does not always means more connectivity and small diameters, in fact, Indonesia presents reciprocity between small compacted communities