Download to read offline
Uploaded byJosmiliteratura
User interaction-social media-100102032820-phpapp01
1) The document discusses modeling user interactions in online social networks to solve real problems. It analyzes data from Twitter and Me2day to measure differences in strength of user interactions. 2) It finds that interactions like replies are more common than retweets or direct messages on Twitter, while interactions like comments are more common than "metoos" on Me2day. 3) It proposes developing an interaction index and formulas to measure strength of relationships between users based on analyzing types and amounts of interactions over time. This could help solve problems like identifying disconnected friends or recommending experts to follow.
More Related Content
Similar to User interaction-social media-100102032820-phpapp01
User interaction-social media-100102032820-phpapp01
- 1. Modeling User Interactionsin Online Social Networks to solve real problems Seokchan (Channy) Yun and Hong-Gee Kim Biomedical Knowledge Engineering Laboratory Seoul National University, Korea Asian Workshop of Social Web and Interoperability ASWC 2009 Dec. 7th , Shanghai, China
- 2. Agenda • Introduction – Someapproaches for Social Semantic Web • Challenges – Finding the definition of online friends and interaction between users • Survey of social interaction in real SNS – Twitter and Me2day • Result and Discussion • Conclusion and Future plan
- 3. Emerging Online SocialNetwork
- 4. • New opportunitiesfor social science – Explicit and implicit social network information – Large scale and dynamic data sets – Different modalities (profiles, email, IM, Twitter…) • Challenges – Friend on the Web = Friend in reality? – Heterogeneity and quality of data – Time and space complexity – Ethical and legal challenges – Complex interaction = Centrality in reality?
- 5. History • First Mover –Classmates.com, Match.com and sixdegree.com – Friendster and Orkut • Majority – Myspace – Facebook – Linkedin – Twitter
- 6. How succeed? • Allowsa user to create and maintain an online network of close friends or business associates for social and professional reasons: – Friendships and relationships – Offline meetings – Curiosity about others – Business opportunities – Job hunting • Allows a user to share interests based on object-centered sociality with meaning – Sharing photo, video and bookmark – Life streaming over SNS – Broadcasting and publishing of my own content
- 7. Social Semantic InformationSpaces John Breslin, The Social Semantic Web: An Introduction (2009)
- 8. FOAF Ontology describing persons,their activities and their relations to other people and objects.
- 9. SIOC (John Breslin) Ontologyinterconnecting discussion methods such as blogs, forums and mailing lists to each other
- 10.
- 11.
- 12. Tripartite Social Ontology(Peter Mica) • A graph model of ontologies based on tripartite graphs of actors, concepts and instances – Actors: users – Concepts: tags – Instances: objects • Emergent semantics – General idea: observe semantics in the way agents interact (use concepts) • Bottom-up ontologies • Semantics = syntax + statistics
- 13. Online Presence Project(Milan Stankovic) • Feel of Presense – Status Messages – Online Status (Busy, Available, Away…) – Current listening music, activities…
- 14. Activity Streams (ChrisMessina) • Lightweight simple Atom based syndication for user’s activities • Widely supported by Facebook, MySpace etc. • Basic Format – User, Verb, Noun
- 15. SemSNA (Guillaume Erétéo) Ontologydescribing social network analysis notion such as centrality, degree and betweenness within users
- 16. SemSIO = SIOC+SemSNA(Guillaume Erétéo, ISWC2009)
- 17. Limitations • FOAF – Onlyfocusing on ONE PERSON • SIOC – Only focusing on relationship with site (forum), contents and person. • Tripartite Social Ontology – Too high abstraction level to be implemented • Online Presence Project – Only focusing “Presence” not to be interested in “Activity • Activity streams – Only description for Person / Verb / Object • SemSNI – Only can be applied in specific domain if you have all data
- 18. What’s real problems? •Twitter – There are many spammers and followers. – Whom I should follow? Who is expert? • me2DAY (or Facebook) – There are many friends – Who disconnected in my friendship? • Flickr – There are many photos. – What’s good photos enjoying with friend? • RateMDs – There are many doctors. – What’s good doctors recommended by friends?
- 19. Remained Question inreal world? If you’re not Twitter, you cannot do anything. How about semantically dealing with real social web?
- 20. 1. What’s definitionof Online Friend? Online Friend != Real FOAF’s knows is not knowing! Well-known Friends 9% Colleagues 7% Meet once in offline 25% Knowing only name 12% Famous person 3% Unknown friend of friends 13% Everyone who requests 32% Known Unknown http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1230119/?view=results
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25. 2. What’s meaningof online interaction? Online Interaction != Real SemSNA’s centrality is not real!
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29. Challenges • Online friendsand interaction are not real because there are no limits of time and space. • It’s hard to find degree of user relationship. – Coupling-decoupling between users (high vs. weak) by time change • We have to consider the difference of each online interaction to measure proper centrality and betweenness.
- 30. Approach • Sample dataanalysis of Me2day and Twitter – Developing Twitter application: Twi2me • Twi2me helps for user to post Tweets to me2day in real-time. – Me2day: gathering interaction on purpose of research of 32,200 accounts from January to October, 2009 – Twitter: gathering interaction 1,120 users on time of Oct. 12th , 2009 • Measuring differences of social interaction – Classification of user-interaction – Analysis of interaction statistics
- 31.
- 32. Results : me2day NumbersKindsof interaction Sharing items in SNS3,590Gift Short message by phone30,000SMS Similar with Direct Messages31,915Private Messages Similar with Retweets451,260Metoo Comments between users2,074,284Reply
- 33. Poll survey ofDirect Messages
- 34. Result: Twitter • Surveyedby total 1,120 Twitter users in Korea – Reply interaction is growing along with followers. – ReTweet and Direct Message are less than reply 1 10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000 Reply ReTw eet DM Total Messages Total Followers
- 35. Suggestion: Interaction Index •If the interaction index is “1”, it’s general relationship. • Ratio compared with interaction index between user A and B is strength of betweenness. Comparing with Reply1.00002,591,049Total 577.790.00143,590Gift 69.140.011630,000SMS 64.990.012331,915Private Messages 4.600.1742451,260Metoo 1.000.80062,074,284Reply Impact of InteractionInteraction IndexNb. Of Interaction
- 36. Discussion • Q: Interactiondepends on user experience? – User tends to do easy interactive method. – ReTweet is harder than reply in Twitter. • A: User does emotional interaction. – For example, agreement and consensus • Metoo is easier than comment in me2day • ReTweet is easier than direct message in Twitter – But, • Nb. of comment > Nb. Of metoo • Nb. of direct message == Nb. of ReTweet (Information distribution)
- 37. Conclusion • Difference ofstrength in user interaction – Twitter: • Reply < ReTweet < Direct Message < SMS – me2Day • Comment < metoo < Private Messages < SMS < Gift • Measuring strength of user relationship – Modeling of user degree – Measuring Interaction Impact – Similarity formula (A,B) • Solving problem after integration data
- 38. Future Plan • Socialweb evolves direct sharing and broadcasting instead of document link based distribution and knowledge discovering. – Social Interaction is more important in social networks. – FriendFeed, Facebook life streaming, Twitter • Need to represent “Degree between people” – Writing simple ontology represents interaction • Channy replies Hong-Gee (What) (When) in Facebook • John retweets Channy (What) (When) in Twitter – Extending ActiveStreams or SemSNI
- 39. • Who disconnectedin my friendship on me2DAY? – Gathering me2day activities – Measuring interaction factor and coupling degree • Distance = # of interaction/ time interval • Priority = normalized value for each interactions – Evaluation with user’s reaction for alert • “Why don’t you contact this person because it’s long time not to contact by you?” • Whom I should follow? Who is expert in Twitter? – Gathering twitter activities – Measuring interaction factor and coupling-degree – Evaluation with user’s reaction for recommendation
- 40.