I will present a talk at Personal Digital Archiving 2012 titled “Arc-chiving: saving social links for study“.

The conference will be held on Thursday-Friday, February 23-24, 2012 at the Internet Archive in San Francisco.

News and updates on the conference will be posted at the conference web site, http://personalarchiving.com.

My talk this year will focus on collecting and analyzing connections between digital objects (like users) and the insights these tools make possible.

Abstract: While digital content is archived in various ways, the “arcs” or links among people and their digital objects are not systematically saved. Efforts to store social media often overlooks including data about collections of connections. The Social Media Research Foundation is dedicated to open tools, open data, and open scholarship related to social media. It is producing tools that can collect, analyze and upload social media data, including the arcs that link people and objects. Using the free and open NodeXL application, users can collect, analyze and visualize complex networks and then upload the data to a growing archive on the web at NodeXLGraphGallery.org. As the group of researchers grows, an archive is being assembled to provide researchers around the world with the data about social media needed to understand the ways computer mediated communication tools shape society.

My talk at the 2011 Personal Digital Archiving conference is available through the Internet Archive’s video service:

Threaded conversations are a major form of social media.  Message boards, email and email lists, twitter, blog comments, text messages, and discussion forums are all social media systems built around the message thread data structure.  As messages are exchanged through these systems, some messages are sent as a reply to a particular previous message.  As messages are sent in reply to prior messages, chains of messages form.  Message chains come in two major forms: branching and non-branching.  Branching threads are those that allow more than one message to reply to a prior message.  Non-branching threads are single chains, like a string of pearls, that allow only one message to reply to a prior message.  Many web based message boards are non-branching.  Many email systems and discussion forums are branching.

ThreadMill requires a minimal set of data elements to generate its reports.  A data table must minimally have a column of information for each message that includes the name of the message board, the forum, the thread, and the author, along with a unique identifier for each message and the date and time it was posted.  Optional data elements include the unique identifier of the message being replied to, the URL of the message, and the URL for a profile photo.

All forms of threaded message exchange can be measured.  Simple measures like the count of the number of messages or the number of authors are obvious and useful.  Other measures can be created from more sophisticated analysis.  For example, the network of connections that forms as different authors reply to one another can be extracted and analyzed using network analysis methods.  It is possible to calculate metrics from these networks of reply that describe the location of each person in the graph.

ThreadMill generates several data sets that can be used to create visualizations of the activity and structure of a message board collection.

A Treemap data set can illustrate the hierarchy of encapsulated authors within threads, threads within fora, fora within boards, and boards within collections.  Treemap visualizations of collections of threaded conversations can quickly highlight the most active or populous discussions.

An AuthorLine visualization takes the form of a double histogram, with bubbles representing each thread active in each time period sized by the volume of messages the author contributed, sorted by size.  Threads that have been initiated by the author are represented as bubbles above the center line.  Messages that the author contributes to threads started by other authors are represented as bubbles stacked below the center line.  AuthorLines quickly reveal the pattern of activity an author displays and identifies which of several types of contributors the author is.

A scatter plot visualization represents each author as a bubble in an X-Y space defined by the number of different days the author was active against the average number of messages the author contributes to the threads in which they participate.

A time series line chart reveals the days of maximum and minimum activity along with trends.

A network diagram reveals the overall structure of the discussion space and the people who occupy strategic locations within the network graph.

ThreadMill has received generous assistance from Morningside Analytics.  Bruce Woodson implemented ThreadMill.

This year the IEEE Social Computing conference is being held in Boston, October 9-11, 2011.

The NodeXL team from the Social Media Research Foundation have a paper on our newest layout feature in NodeXL: Group-in-a-box.

Abstract: Communities in social networks emerge from interactions among individuals and can be analyzed through a combination of clustering and graph layout algorithms. These approaches result in 2D or 3D visualizations of clustered graphs, with groups of vertices representing individuals that form a community. However, in many instances the vertices have attributes that divide individuals into distinct categories such as gender, profession, geographic location, and similar. It is often important to investigate what categories of individuals comprise each community and vice-versa, how the community structures associate the individuals from the same category. Currently, there are no effective methods for analyzing both the community structure and the category-based partitions of social graphs. We propose Group-In-a-Box (GIB), a metalayout for clustered graphs that enables multi-faceted analysis of networks. It uses the treemap space filling technique to display each graph cluster or category group within its own box, sized according to the number of vertices therein. GIB optimizes visualization of the network sub-graphs, providing a semantic substrate for category-based and cluster-based partitions of social graphs. We illustrate the application of GIB to multi-faceted analysis of real social networks and discuss desirable properties of GIB using synthetic datasets.

The paper is authored by:

Eduarda Mendes Rodrigues*, Natasa Milic-Frayling†, Marc Smith‡, Ben Shneiderman§, Derek Hansen¶
* Dept. of Informatics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Portugal – eduardamr @ acm.org
† Microsoft Research, Cambridge, UK -natasamf @ microsoft.com
‡ Connected Action Consulting Group, Belmont, California, USA – marc @ connectedaction.net
§ Dept. of Computer Science & Human-Computer Interaction Lab, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA – ben @ cs.umd.edu
¶ College of Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland – dlhansen @ umd.edu

A map of the connections among the people who recently tweeted #SocialCom2011:

Connections among the Twitter users who recently tweeted the word #socialcom2011 when queried on October 10, 2011, scaled by numbers of followers (with outliers thresholded). Connections created when users reply, mention or follow one another.

Layout using the “Group Layout” composed of tiled bounded regions. Clusters calculated by the Clauset-Newman-Moore algorithm are also encoded by color.

A larger version of the image is here: www.flickr.com/photos/marc_smith/6232130442/sizes/l/in/ph…

Top most between users:
@danielequercia
@gadgetman4u
@bkeegan
@shaunlawson
@maryheston
@mmiiina
@ronaldomenezes
@theshadowhost
@fergal_reid
@cosleydr

Graph Metric: Value
Graph Type: Directed
Vertices: 36
Unique Edges: 119
Edges With Duplicates: 155
Total Edges: 274
Self-Loops: 105
Connected Components: 2
Single-Vertex Connected Components: 1
Maximum Vertices in a Connected Component: 35
Maximum Edges in a Connected Component: 273
Maximum Geodesic Distance (Diameter): 5
Average Geodesic Distance: 2.174551
Graph Density: 0.107936508
NodeXL Version: 1.0.1.179

More NodeXL network visualizations are here: www.flickr.com/photos/marc_smith/sets/72157622437066929/

I have enjoyed and been educated by my previous visits to South Africa and the Mobile Web in Africa conference, now in its 3rd year.

MWA gathers the many parts of the picture of mobile technologies in play across the African continent.

I will speak again at this year’s event, focusing on social media networks.  My partner is Walter Pike, a marketing professional with a specialty in digital media.

Here is the agenda for the workshop on Friday, November 25th.

Photos from the prior two years of Mobile Web Africa after the jump:

2010

2009

Bits exist along a gradient from private to public.  But in practice they only move in one direction.

Thus, there are two destinies for information: public or oblivion.

Information wants to be copied.

This is not the same as information wanting to be free (or expensive), or information wanting *you* to be free.  Information probably prefers to be free because it may increase the rate at which it is copied, not because it is inherently liberating to the user.  In fact, the “free” quality of some information is probably not liberating at all.  Copying and liberty are orthogonal.

Information diffuses over time: access rights to information can expand over time, but only rarely (ever?) does data become less available, and once available publicly, information is almost never entirely private again.

With enough copies on enough devices, information becomes essentially public. The state of being public may come in degrees, some things are more public than others.  Much information is public in principle but enjoys security by obscurity. Obscurity is eroded by increasing availability of computing resources that make collection and machine analysis affordable at large scales.  The banality of data is no protection.  “No one cares what I think/do/say/click” is not a valid assumption.  In aggregate the banal is data and fuel to many business models.  Maybe no one *cares* what you tweet, click, buy or search for, but many businesses make it their business to aggregate these scattered faint signals and build detailed profiles to drive commerce and customized views of data.

Some information is destroyed, never to be recovered.  This is the only way information can avoid eventually (potentially) becoming public. But less and less data now meets this fate.  Delete is a declining feature of many systems.

Information that is not public and has not yet been destroyed is just waiting to change to either state.

Despite security systems, many private bits are eventually exposed by people passing material to someone else who then accidentally makes them public, or they do so unintentionally themselves by leaving files in publicly accessible locations that are visited by search engine spiders and other web crawlers.  Even professionally managed private data repositories are subject to subsequent distribution, infiltration or error. Data spills are becoming more common. Billions of records are hemorrhaged  into the public regularly.  If well funded organizations cannot secure their information, the rest of us should take note.

It may not be possible for big organizations or any organization to secure their networks, or even do so sufficiently effectively to give users a practical period of privacy, however short.  Eventually private bits, even when encrypted (no matter how well), become public because the march of computing power makes their encryption increasingly trivial to break and their exchange over networks (no mater how well secured) is subject to leaking, intentional and otherwise.  Private bits may only have a “half-life” during which they retain their non-public existence.  The length of this half-life may itself be getting shorter.   Mary Branscome suggests that there could be a physical law in operation: the natural entropy of access control lists?

All bits that persist are destined to be public, and once public never to be private again. Unless they are destroyed.

I argue that the only bits that you cannot find are the ones you need right now. The only bits you cannot get rid of are the ones that are most embarrassing to you right now.  Just because you cannot find the bits you want does not mean that no one else can find those bits.

All your bits are belong to us.

This issue is getting more important as we are invited to use systems that promise selective sharing of data and other tools generate ever more data to potentially share.  Anything that puts your bits into the cloud promises selective sharing.  I believe and hope my much beloved Dropbox account is separate from all the others, except for the one’s I chose to share with. And I think it is, expect for that glitch they had, the details of which elude me (but I think we’re good now, and I so depend on Dropbox I do not know what I would do without it). But all these walls are just made out of a few lines of business logic and an Access Control List. ACLs rule our access to digital objects with an iron fist until they don’t for the many human and technical reasons mentioned.  Like most human infrastructures these selective sharing mechanisms are subject to failure and attack.

Now new sources of data captured from the details of everyday life by sensors and  services are increasingly recorded by external systems and by people themselves, generating new streams of archival material that is richer than all but the most obsessively observed biographies.

Many organizations are adopting social media and creating data sets that can map their internal social network structure as an accidental by-product of their communication practices.  Studying these data sets is a focus of growing interest.  Research projects like SenseCam are now becoming products and existing services like MingleSticks, Poken, FourSquare, and Google Latitude already deliver many of these features. Devices like iPhone and Android phones are weaving location information into every application.

Some steps are still in progress: when my phone notices your phone a new set of mobile social software applications become possible as whole populations capture data about other people as they beacon their identities to one another. Additional sensors will collect ever more medical data with the intent of improving our health and safety, as early adopters in the “Quantified Self” movement make clear.

But the  consequences of data diffusion are becoming difficult to predict.  Social media systems are being linked to one another to enable cascades of events to be triggered from a single message as status updates are passed among Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and blogs.  Tools now automatically aggregate the results of searches and post articles that themselves may trigger other events.  Taking a photo or updating a status message can now set off a series of unpredictable events.

Add potential improvements in audio and facial recognition and a new world of continuous observation and publication emerges.  Some benefits, like those displayed by the Google Flu tracking system, illustrate the potential for insight from aggregated sensor data.  More exploitative applications are also likely.

The result will be lives that are more publicly displayed than ever before.  The collapse of roles (“lowest common denominator culture”) described by Bernie Hogan (listen starting in about 40 minutes – but the entire talk is good and worth a listen) as described by the sociologist Erving Goffman may be one consequence: we are interacting with everyone when we interact with anyone.  Secret shared meanings may still be possible — but selectively shared bits are not, at least not very reliably so in the short term and almost certainly not in the medium term.

Therefore, all services that promote the idea of “selective sharing” are selling a myth.  The more you trust that information you generate can be contained, the more potential there is for an “explosive decompression” as data intended for an individual or a small group becomes suddenly available to a large group or a complete population. Private bits are in a state of high potential energy, always poised to become public.

Engineering is the science, art and practice of containing and directing  forces. Information system engineers might be up to the challenge of delivering selective sharing.  And when combined with law, regulation and social practices, technology could make selective sharing real the way that engineers manage the flow of powerful but dangerous flows of high pressure steam through power plants.  However, recently even high pressure steam engineers working with nuclear fuels have faced some very bad failure conditions beyond their predicted scope.  Information technologists may face analogous issues when managing high pressure containers of selectively shared information.

My policy is not to give up all forms of privacy, I still keep my email and other data behind passwords that I do not (knowingly) share.  I share lots of pictures on flickr but not all of them are public.  I would prefer to keep lots of financial, medical, and personal stuff selectively shared.  I’d like these features to work.

But I have started to understand that my data is likely to be open to others, if not now then some day — and probably sooner than I expect. The net/cloud  holds a good sized and growing  chunk of my digital life and I would like selective sharing features (if I could handle the cognitive tax of managing them).  I just do not believe it is a reasonable expectation.  In a world of increasing interconnection and unifying name and search spaces, data may not be something you can keep local for long.

Tools that suggest that we can reliably segregate content and limit its diffusion are suggesting that water does not roll down hill.  Those who believe that are likely to get wet.

This is a map of the connections among the Twitter users who recently tweeted the words #rw2011 when queried on April 28, 2011, scaled by numbers of followers (with outliers thresholded), connected by replying, mentioning and following.

Layout using the “Group Layout” composed of tiled bounded regions. Clusters calculated by the Clauset-Newman-Moore algorithm are also encoded by color.

A larger version of the network map is here: www.flickr.com/photos/marc_smith/5666637994/sizes/o/

A detailed list of top most between users is here: www.flickr.com/photos/marc_smith/5666069249/

Top most between users: @nytimes, @skynews, @peoplemag, @royalweddingcnn, @itv_news, @katewilliam2011, @julieetchitv, @abc, @cbsnews, @abcroyals

Graph Metric: Value
Graph Type: Directed
Vertices: 1000
Unique Edges: 1735
Edges With Duplicates: 531
Total Edges: 2266
Self-Loops: 0
Connected Components: 271
Single-Vertex Connected Components: 246
Maximum Vertices in a Connected Component: 701
Maximum Edges in a Connected Component: 2199
Maximum Geodesic Distance (Diameter): 11
Average Geodesic Distance: 3.892905
Graph Density: 0.001984985
NodeXL Version: 1.0.1.166

NodeXL is free and open and available from www.codeplex.com/nodexl

NodeXL is developed by the Social Media Research Foundation (www.smrfoundation.org) – which is dedicated to open tools, open data, and open scholarship.

The book, Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world, is available from Morgan Kaufmann and from Amazon.

http://www.ischools.org/iConference11/2011index/

Our paper, Finding Social Roles in Wikipedia,  about the variety of  roles people perform in Wikis received the best paper award (along with 4 others) in a field of 86 papers.   The 2011 iConference accepted 86 papers, and had about 550 attendees.

The paper is authored by: Howard T. Welser at Ohio University, Austin Lin at Cornell University and Microsoft, Dan Cosley, Fedor Dokshin, Gueorgi Kossinets and Geri Gay at  Cornell University, and Marc Smith from Connected Action.

The paper pdf pre-print is available here: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~welser/Welser.Cosley.plus.Wiki.Roles.pdf

The link to the ACM abstract and pdf: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1940778&CFID=9933318&CFTOKEN=58981138

Abstract: This paper investigates some of the social roles people play in the online community of Wikipedia. We start from qualitative comments posted on community oriented pages, wiki project memberships, and user talk pages in order to identify a sample of editors who represent four key roles: substantive experts, technical editors, vandal fighters, and social networkers. Patterns in edit histories and egocentric network visualizations suggest potential “structural signatures” that could be used as quantitative indicators of role adoption. Using simple metrics based on edit histories we compare two samples of Wikipedians: a collection of long term dedicated editors, and a cohort of editors from a one month window of new arrivals. According to these metrics, we find that the proportions of editor types in the new cohort are similar those observed in the sample of dedicated contributors. The number of new editors playing helpful roles in a single month’s cohort nearly equal the number found in the dedicated sample. This suggests that informal socialization has the potential provide sufficient role related labor despite growth and change in Wikipedia. These results are preliminary, and we describe several ways that the method can be improved, including the expansion and refinement of role signatures and identification of other important social roles.

Web Science Doctoral Summer School 2011

I will be attending and speaking at the upcoming 2011 Web Science Trust Graduate Summer School tobe held at DERI, NUI Galway Ireland from July 6th to July 13th, 2011.  I will speak about social media network analysis and run a workshop on using NodeXL.  There is a packed schedule featuring a great group of researchers who are gathering at the event, including:

* Prof. Wendy Hall is Professor of Computer Science at the University of Southampton, UK, and Dean of the Faculty of Physical and Applied Sciences.
* Prof. Nigel Shadbolt is Professor of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Deputy Head (Research) of the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton.
* Prof. Stefan Decker is a professor at the National University of Ireland, Galway, and director of the Digital Enterprise Research Institute.
* Dr. Harith Alani is a senior lecturer at the Knowledge Media Institute, where he is heading a group specialising in Social Semantics.
* Dr. Bernie Hogan is a Research Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute. He specializes in novel methods for online data capture and analysis, especially via social media.
* Prof. Scott Kirkpatrick has a background in physics (AB Princeton, PhD Harvard) and 15 years of developing new technologies at IBM’s TJ Watson Research Center before coming to the Hebrew University in 2000.
* Prof. Enric Plaza holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science by the Technical University of Catalonia (UPC) and is Research Professor of the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC).
* Prof. Steffen Staab is the director of Institute WeST – Web Science and Technologies and of the Institute for Computer Science of the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany.
* Dr. Derek Greene is a Research Fellow at the School of Computer Science and Informatics, University College Dublin. As part of the Clique Research Cluster, his focus is on network analysis and community finding, with a particular emphasis on dynamic mobile and social media networks.
* Dr. Michael Hausenblas is a Research Fellow at DERI, NUI Galway, where he leads the Linked Data Research Centre.
* Dr. Daniele Quercia is Horizon researcher at the University of Cambridge (UK). he is interested in computational social science, web science, and social computing.
* Dr. Markus Strohmaier is an Assistant Professor at the Knowledge Management Institute, Faculty of Computer Science at Graz University of Technology.

The event is focused on the methods and theories needed to grasp the nature of the social implications of the rapid changes in the technologies of communication and computation:

“The Web is the largest technological artefact in existence, comprising a global network of information sites and services. It is a social machine, delivering information between people and communities, embedded in almost all processes of human society: education, medicine, science and technology, commerce, entertainment and social activity. It is often simply supposed that the Web is a neutral technology, a stable computing platform for the delivery of information and services. What is overlooked is that the Web is changing constantly in response to the demands of human society. Incremental innovations leads to changes in how people use the Web and in turn how Web technology responds to changed human interaction. Small technological decisions influence how individuals use the Web and ripple out to have unanticipated macro-effects. Sometimes these effects are beneficial such as the emergence of Web 2.0 technologies. Other technologies such as the rise of spam bots or ‘blackhat’ search engine optimisation techniques clutter the Web with irrelevant, distracting information. While influential corporations such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft generate huge revenues from the Web, the Web itself is owned by everyone and no-one. We need to fully understand the demands placed on the Web by human society, so that its fate does not lead to a ‘tragedy of the commons’ but to a sustainable technological resource for the future.”

http://webscience.deri.ie/index.html

Read More

The event is a globally visible opportunity for the President of the United States to present the Administration’s vision for its agenda for the year to the people of the US and the world.

The hashtag #stateoftheunion is already very active in Twitter.

This is a NodeXL map of the connections among people who recently tweeted the string “stateoftheunion” on 21 January, 2011.

The most between user, @keitholbermann, is highlighted.  Two major clusters emerge, shown arbitrarily here as green and blue, and which are more clearly seen in the filtered graph below the list.

Summary network statistics:

Graph Type Directed
Vertices 1259
Unique Edges 8014
Edges With Duplicates 544
Total Edges 8558
Connected Components 306
Single-Vertex Connected Components 293
Maximum Vertices in a Connected Component 937
Maximum Edges in a Connected Component 8513
Maximum Geodesic Distance (Diameter) 9
Average Geodesic Distance 3.140191
Graph Density 0.00522786

The most “between” contributors in the network are:

@keitholbermann, @borowitzreport, @thefix, @katyinindy,
@america1first, @wbconservative, @westwingreport, @dailykos,
@writer2go, and @gottalaff

When contributors with low “betweenness” are filtered out of the graph, two dominant clusters become easier to discern.  To the left are supporters of the President and to the right are those critical of the Administration.  A representative tweet from this cluster is highlighted.

A recent paper “EventGraphs: Charting Collections of Conference Connections” by Marc Smith from Connected Action, Professor Derek Hansen (College of Information Studies) and Professor Ben Shneiderman (Computer Science/Human Computer Interaction Lab) both from the University of Maryland and has been accepted for publication at the 2011 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) Conference.  This is the 44th year for the conference. Derek Hansen presented the paper on January 7, 2011.

Hansen, D., Smith, M., Shneiderman, B., EventGraphs: charting collections of conference connections. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Forty-Forth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). January 4-7, 2011. Kauai, Hawaii.

http://www.cs.umd.edu/localphp/hcil/tech-reports-search.php?number=2010-13

Our paper is about visualizing social media and it describes the visualization of the patterns of connections formed when people tweet about events like conferences and news stories.

EventGraphs are social media network diagrams constructed from content selected by its association with time-bounded events, such as conferences. Many conferences now communicate a common “hashtag” or keyword to identify messages related to the event. EventGraphs help make sense of the collections of connections that form when people follow, reply or mention one another and a keyword. This paper defines EventGraphs, characterizes different types, and shows how the social media network analysis add-in NodeXL supports their creation and analysis. The paper also identifies the structural and conversational patterns to look for and highlight in EventGraphs and provides design ideas for their improvement.

A collection of EventGraphs are available in flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marc_smith/sets/72157625618025980/

The EventGraph for HICSS this year is here: 20110109-NodeXL-Twitter-HICSS

The top most between contributors to the HICSS Twitter graph this year are: @arcticpenguin @avantgame @barrywellman @clifflampe @dalprof @chandlerism @shakmatt @marc_smith @shen045 and @thecatandthekey

Here is the data set: 20110109-NodeXL-Twitter-HICSS
Graph Metric Value
Graph Type Directed
Vertices 92
Unique Edges 243
Edges With Duplicates 71
Total Edges 314
Self-Loops 0
Connected Components 21
Single-Vertex Connected Components 18
Maximum Vertices in a Connected Component 69
Maximum Edges in a Connected Component 307
Maximum Geodesic Distance (Diameter) 8
Average Geodesic Distance 3.081693
Graph Density 0.032967033

NodeXL Version 1.0.1.159

An article about social media visualization Social Seen: Analyzing and Visualizing Data from Social Networks by Hunter Whitney, appeared in UX Magazine on December 15, 2010.  It provides a great round up of tools and approaches to mapping populations in social media spaces.

Previous HICSS papers:

Gleave, Eric, Howard T. Welser, Marc Smith, and Thomas Lento.  2009.  “A conceptual and operational definition of social role in online community.”   In Proceedings of the 42nd  Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS), January 5-8. Computer Society Press.  (Best Paper, Digital Media and Communication Mini-Track)

2009 – HICSS – 42 – Best Paper – A Conceptual and Operational Definition of ‘Social Role’ in Online Community

Fisher, D., Smith, M., and Welser, H. You Are Who You Talk To, Proceedings of HICSS, January 2006. (Best Paper, Digital Media and Communication Program)

http://www.connectedaction.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/2006-HICSS-You-Are-Who-You-Talk-To-Detecting-Roles-in-Usenet-Newsgroups.pdf

Viégas, Fernanda B., Marc Smith. “Newsgroup Crowds and AuthorLines: Visualizing the Activity of Individuals in Conversational Cyberspaces“, Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on Software and Systems (HICSS) 2004. (Best Paper: Persistent Conversation Minitrack)

http://www.connectedaction.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/2004-HICSS-Viegas-and-Smith-Newsgroup-Crowds-and-Author-Lines.pdf

Here are some sample event graphs:

The Second Workshop on Information in Networks
September 24-25, 2010, New York City

Sponsored in part by the Initiative on Information in Networks
Organizers: Sinan Aral, Foster Provost, Arun Sundararajan

The second Workshop on Information in Networks (WIN10) will be held this year September 24-25, 2010, again in New York City. From the program description:

“Last year’s workshop brought together a small yet influential community around topics that at their core involve ‘information in networks‘—its distribution, its diffusion, its value, and its influence on social and economic outcomes. Scholars from fields as diverse as computer science, economics, information systems, marketing, physics, political science and sociology came together to lay the foundation for ongoing relationships and to build a multidisciplinary research community. This year’s workshop will build on this foundation toward bringing more innovative content and vibrant discussion to the forum. Speakers will share their recent research, which may have been published elsewhere, but which may not be widely known outside of their own disciplines. The workshop will combine invited and contributed talks with poster presentations selected from a pool of submitted abstracts. We hope the energy of New York City will inspire the gathering, and that our participants will leave with new ideas and a renewed sense of community.”

Ben Shneiderman and Jenny Preece will speak about their work on social media applied to national priorities with a talk titled: “Promoting National Initiatives for Technology-Mediated Social Participation“.  The talk includes their work creating NSF workshops on Technology-Mediated Social Participation (www.tmsp.umd.edu), the paper Reader-to-Leader Framework: Motivating technology-mediated social participation (which appeared in the AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction in March 2009), and recent work with the Encyclopedia of Life (www.eol.org), and  NodeXL projects.  Here is the abstract.

WIN10 speakers include:
==============================
Ron Burt, University of Chicago
Nicholas Christakis, Harvard University
Nathan Eagle, MIT
Sanjeev Goyal, Cambridge University
Matthew Jackson, Stanford University
Jenny Preece, University of Maryland
Ben Shneiderman, University of Maryland
Tony Jebara, Columbia University
David Jensen, University of Massachussetts
Michael Kearns, University of Pennsylvania
Rachel Kranton, Duke University
David Lazer, Northeastern University
Mark Newman, University of Michigan (tentative)
Alex Sandy Pentland, MIT
Alessandro Vespignani, Indiana University
Stanley Wasserman, Indiana University
Duncan Watts, Yahoo! Research

With the VOSON Data Provider Plugin for NodeXL, you can now access VOSON hyperlink network construction services from within NodeXL, an Excel 2007/2010 template for analyzing social media network data. So there are two ways you can use VOSON for analyzing hyperlink networks: (1) via the VOSON System (which you login to using a web browser); (2) via VOSON+NodeXL. The VOSON System is a special tool for hyperlink network construction and analysis. NodeXL provides access to various types of social media network data sources, e.g. Facebook, Twitter and, now, WWW hyperlink networks via VOSON.

Developers interested in creating their own data import “spigots” for NodeXL may be interested in this post on the NodeXL Codeplex discussion board: For Programmers: About NodeXL Plug-Ins.

To get access to the VOSON+NodeXL plugin and documentation you first need to register for a VOSON user account.

Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM-10)

***Microblogging 2***

Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political Sentiment (Tumasjan et al.)

Successful use of social media in las presidential campaign has established twitter as an integral part of political campaign toolbox

Goal: analyze on Twitter: 1. Deliberation, 2. Sentiment, 3. Prediction

Previous work:

Deliberation: Honeycutt and Herring – Twitter not only used for one-way comm, but 31% of all tweets direct a specific addressee. Kroop and Jansen – political internet discussion boards dominated by small # of heavy users

Sentiment: How accurately can Twitter inform us about the electorate’s political sentiment?

Prediction: can Twitter serve as a predictor of the election result?

Data: examined more than 100k tweets and extracted their sentiment using LIWC

Target: German federal election 2009

Results:

1. While Twitter is used as a forum for political deliberation on substantive issues, this forum is dominated by heavy users

Two widely accepted indicators of blog-based deliberation:

-The exchange of substantive issues (31% of all messages contain “@”),

-Equality of participaion: While the distribution of users across groups is almost identical with the one found on internet message boards, we find even less equality of participation for the political debate on Twitter. Additional analyses have shown users to exhibit a party-bias in the volume and sentiment of messages.

2. The online sentiment in tweets reflects nuanced offline differences between the politicians in our sample.

LIWC profiles:

-Leading candidates: Very similar profile for all leading candidates, only polarizing political characters, such as liberal leader and socialist, deviate in line with their roles as opposition leaders. Messages mentioning Steinmeir (coalition leader) are most tentative

3. Similarity of profiles is a plausible reflection of the political proximity between the parties

Key findings: high convergence of leading candidates, more divergence among politicians of governin grand coalition than among those of a potential right wing coalition

4. Activity on Twitter prior to election seems to validly reflect the election outcome (MAE 1.65%), and joint party mentions accurately reflect the political ties between parties.

From Tweets to Polls: Linking Text Sentiment to Public Opinion Time Series (Brendan O’Connor)

Measuring public opinion through social media

Old method – query via dialing, asking, etc.

New method – people write their thoughts to social media, query social media to create aggregate text sentiment measure.

Can compare results from new method to old method

Contributions:

-High correlations between very simple sentiment analysis and telephone polls

-Time series smoothing helps

Text Data: Twitter

-Large, public, ll in one place

-Sources: Archiving Twitter Streaming API (“Gardenhose”/”Sample” ~15% public tweets); Scrape earlier messages via API

-Volume ~ .7B tweets

-Poll data: consumer confidence (2008-2009) – index of consumer sentiment (Reuters/Michigan), Gallup daily. 2008 presidential elections (aggregation, pollster.com). 2009 presidential job approval (Gallup daily)

-Message selection via topic keywords

-topic frequencies change rapidly

-Sentiment analysis: word counting.

–Subjectivity Clues lexicon from OpinionFinder / U Pitt (Very simple system!)

Key: don’t need to classify individual messages correctly, just need a sentiment ratio over messages.

-Sentiment Ratio Moving Average: High day-to-day volatility. Average last k days.

-Which leads, poll or text?

–Cross-correlation analysis: between sentiment score for day t, poll for day t+L.

—Results: “jobs” text leading indicator for poll, can be turned into forecasting model

—Reminiscent of Leskovec et al. Blogpulse paper, very nice!

-Keyword message selection:

–15-day windows, no lag. “jobs” r=80%, “job” r=7%. Is stemming always good?

Presidential elections and job approval: sentiment doesn’t correlate, but pure volume does (79% for “obama” 74% for “mccain”)

Conclusions:

-Preliminary results that sentiment analysis on Twitter data can give information similar to traditional opinion polls. But, still not well-understood. Twitter bias? News vs. opinion?

-Issues: Relevant message selection, Time series smoothing

-Replacement for polls? Promising but not quite yet

Information Contagion: an Empirical Study of the Spread of News on Digg and Twitter Social Networks (Lerman et al.)

Information flow on networks

Dynamics of Social Information

-How does infromation spread on online social networks?

–How far and how fast does information flow on networks?

–What factors influence its spread?

–How does network structure affect dynamics of information flow?

–What does this tell us about quality of information?

-Study question through comparative empirical analysis of 2 social news networks – using URLs as markers

Social News: Digg, Twitter + Tweetmeme

-Tweetmeme aggregates all tweets and features most retweeted URLs on its front page

Data Scope:

-3.5K digg stories with time submitted, promoted, votes for each story (time of vote, name of voter). 140k active users who voted for at least one stroy, 71k of them following at least one user. 258k links = fan network

-398 most retweeted stories 6/11/09 – 7/3/09, extracted from tweetmeme. Retweets of each story, up to 1k most recent retweets. Follower network of users who retweeted the stories

Questions:

-Usability of social netws – do people use digg, twitter the same way? what effect do differences in user interface have?

-dynamics of social networks – how far does info spread, how fast does it spread, and what are the effects of net strucutre?

Basic terms:

-Submitter  = user who submitted link to story, or user who tweeted link to a story

-Vote = vote on Digg or retweet on Twitter

-Fan = fan on Digg or follower on Twitter

User activity: distribution of fans (Power law on Digg with up to 1e5, power law with bump ~ 10 on Twitter with up to 1e7 users)

User activity: distribution of voting: Power law on Digg and Twitter (with different slopes)

Dynamics of stories: both digg and twitter show exponential growth, but for Digg it is preceded by slow period before story is on front page, both show vote saturation

Popularity distribution of stories shows lognormal fit

Information flow on networks: information spreads on a network as fans (followers) vote for (retweet) stories their friends submit or vote for.

Dynamics of information spread on networks looks very similar to overall dynamics of information spread (evolution of fan votes qualitatively similar to evolution of all votes)

BUT distribution of popularity is different, now shows normal fit. “Inequality of popularity” no longer observed (social influence accounted for?). News spreads farther on Twitter than on Digg.

How far does information spread among submitter’s fans?

-On digg many stories get voted by submitter’s fans, opposite case on Twitter

How fast does info spread on networks?

-Two distinct phases on digg: stories spread faster through network before promotion than afterwards.

-On Twitter, info spreads at constant rate.

Network structure differences: Digg network is denser, more inter-connected than Twitter’s

Summary of results:

-Network structure and info flow

–Digg’s network is denser than Twitter’s: News spreads faster initially through Digg’s network, but it does not spread as far as on Twitter

–Twitter’s network is sparse: Fans unconnected to submitter help spread story

-User interface and information flow:

–Before promotion, Digg stories spread mainly through network (and do so faster)

–No equivalent of promotion on Twitter

Tweeting from the Town Square: measuring Geographic Local Networks (Yardi and boyd)

Two geographically bounded events: Wichita shooting and Altanta parking garage collapse

Methods: two crawls and a poll

RQ1: Do geographically local topics have more dense Twitter networks than non-local topics?

Why this is important? People living in close geo proximity may share characteristics. Connecting similar people can help them form ties, foster community

Spread of News

Spread of News Online – ongoing discussion vs. spikes of short-term high-density discussions around real-world events

Distance

Methods: searched key terms about each evenet, stored user info, crawled first degree net of users. Polled users who had tweeted twice or more about church shooting in first 24 hours after it was announced. Administered poll 3-5 days after event. Sent out 800 requests, received 164 responses.

RQ2: Are people who are central in twitter network more geographically central in physical world?

Sarita Yardi gives shout-out to NodeXL, asks for more scale!

RQ3: What sources do people go to for local news events?

Twitter maps show high level of locality to event, slow spread outward

News Sources – go to locals

News Seekers – also go to locals, then to MSM

Practical applications:

-Utilize local short paths for disseminating information. Schools have long used an “emergency phone tree” with specified # of branches and leaves

-Timely notification of unexpected events

Invited Panel: US Government and Social Media

Macon Phillips, Director of New Media for the Obama White House

Moving from Elections to Governance

Wants academics to build tools that show effect of using social media on user behavior

WH new media director Macon Phillips asks for tools that allow thousands of people to communicate with the President (thanks @sadatshami !)

Don Burke, CIA Directorate of Science and Technology, Intellipedia Project

Haym Hirsh, Director, Division of Information and Intelligent Systems

Social Media and the Federal Government

NSF

US Gov’t early crowdsourcing project – National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Program (1890)

-Experimentation:

–CIA Intellipedia

–NASA Clickworkers

–PeerToPatent

–DARPA Balloon Challenge

–EPA Greenversations

–Over 100 gov’t blogs

-Policy implications and clarifications

–70% of Airmen use YouTube

Challenges:

-Legal and Policy

–Terms of Service: Indemnification, etc.

–Advertising (e.g. alongside gov’t content)

–Procurement: Free = Gift? No competition? Charges imposed after lock-in

Additional Challenges:

-Colbert “attacks”

-Open Government Dialogue

The Open Dialogue Top 5:

1. Concerns about Obama’s Birth Certificate

2. Government spending

3. Marijuana

4. Marijuana

5. Birth Certificate

Additional Opportunities: “No matter who you are, most of the smartest people work for someone else.”

Implications:

-Foster experimentation and innovation w/in federal government

-Provide data for innovation outside the def

-align legal and policy with aspirations

-research

Question about contribution quality: do people feel their contributions are worthwhile? How do we make the value and implications of contribution clear?

What do “votes” for questions mean? Who is the right person to say that legalization of marijuana is not a big question? What questions are “big enough to matter”? The “pothole problem” – should questions about fixing potholes be crowdsourced?

Few poorly worded questions about marijuana, people will speak eloquently and argue for the issue, so it’s not just spam

Don Burke – not EVERY system has to be based on socialmedia

Questions: How do you get recognized by gov’t? Answers: open access, publishing where you’ll be noticed

Question about Intellipedia and procedures for aggregating information. Answer: without the wiki, there was no way to share tacit knowledge. But want to go beyond wiki and to the larger web

Jure Leskovec about developing APIs for gov’t data. Answer: no APIs yet, but government is collecting data in one place that’s publicly visible. Want to see scientific community analyzing datasets and finding results, government may not necessarily know what’s a “good” dataset.

***Analysis of Social Network Usage***

Governance in Social Media: A Case Study of the Wikipedia Promotion Process (Leskovec et al.)

Wikipedia promotion process

3 important features:

-deliberative process yielding a single decision

-is publicly recorder

-consequential for the community

Similarity to offline world: people evaluate other people

We study perspective of voters:

-Burke & Kraut examine candidate’s perspective

-How voters evaluate candidate?

-How do evaluations change over time?

Main findings: Relative assessment

-Voter’s evaluation of the candidate reflects different types of relative assessment

–Let voter V vote on candidate C

–we find that vote of V heavily depends on relationship and relative merit of V and C:

—past interaction

—Number of edits

—Number of “barnstars”

–Response function of vote V:

—Prob. V votes given that x other people have voted

Dataset: Wikipedia voting

-Votes are time stamped and signed by users

–2.8k elections sept ’04 – Jan ’08. 44.6% success rate: Successful: 94.7% support. Failed: 31% support votes

–114K votes (78% support). Each vote can get commented: Support votes: 7% get discussed. Oppose votes: 82% get discussed

User characteristcs

-8.3K users voted

–7.5K voters

–2.5k candidates (some go for promotion multiple times)

-Relative merit:

–How do properties of voter V and candidate C affect V’s vote?

–Two natural (but competing) hypotheses:

H1. Prob. that C receives positive vote depends primarily on characteristics of C, there are objective criteria for user to become admin

H2. Prob. that C receives positive vote depends on relationship between characteristics of C and V

Merit (level of contribution):

-Two ways to quantify merit: total #edits, total #barnstars

-Relative merit: How does prob of V voting positively depend on diff in merit of C and V?

Relative merit hypothesis: if V has higher merit than C then he is less likely to vote

Observations: V is especially unlikely to vote for candidates of the same merit (total edits or barnstars)

Direct V-C interaction: Prob of positive vote as function of prior interactions of V and C.

Observation = prior interaction increases probability of a positive vote (with diminishing returns)

Thresholds and diversity of voters:

-Aggregate response function:

–How does prob. of voting positively depend on frac. of positive votes so far?

-Aggregate response function: baseline: if voter were to flip a coin then f(x)=x

-Observation: voters more inclined to express opinion when it goes against prevailing opinion

-Personal response functions: How does prob. of voter V voting positively depend on frac. of positive votes so far?

-Enough data that we can build models of individuals

-Average is close to baseline but individual variation in shape of response function is large

-Over time voters become more conservative, response functions shift downward and to the left

Elections over time:

–Elections unfold over time: Sequence of pairs (s(t),o(t))

—Very negative elections end ealry

—Failed elections are “top-heavy” = start very positive and slowly get negative.

—Successful elections get more positive over time

—Order of early votes doesn’t matter

–False hypotheses: Candidate’s friends vote early, Herding behavior (excessive influence of first votes)

Activity Lifespan: an Analysis of User Survival Patterns in Online Knowledge Sharing Communities (Yang et al.)

-User survival analysis to show that participation patterns and performance factors can account for a considerable amount of variance in predicting user lifespan

-Compare 3 major Q&A sites: Yahoo! Answers, Baidu Knows, and Naver Knowledge-iN

-Discuss how systems might sustain users

-Characteristics of Q&A sites we studied: in Yahoo Answers, earn points at flat rate per answer / best answer, Pay flat rate in points. In Baidu and Naver, earn points at flat rate per answer + points per best answer, and asker can offer additional points

-In Yahoo, significantly more questions / answer

Method: survival analysis

Defining “death” in online communities: period of inactivity exceeding 100 days. Found model prediction not sensitive to different cutoffs (50-150 days)

General comparison: 30-70% users leave after first day, afterwards curves for all 3 sites flatten. YA users more likely to remain than users of other two sites.

Answering life on average longer than asking life across all sites.

Preference between answering and asking (A/R ratio) can account for considerable amount of variance in predicting user lifespan

Initial interaction:

Obtaining more answers to your first question, writing longer question correlated with longer lifespan on Yahoo and Baidu

Winning best answer also correlated with longer lifespan

First 30 days:

More activity, asking more questions, obtaining more answers per question positively correlated with lifespan on all 3 sites

A/R ratio negatively correlated with lifespan on Yahoo but positively correlated with lifespan on Baidu and Naivr

Winning (best answer) also positively correlated with lifespan on all three sites

Analysis: community evolution

All three sites presented a decline in survival rate from year 1 to year 2, especially for Yahoo Answers

Naivr suffered more difficulty in sustaining users in 2nd year as almost no users stayed after 250 days

Conversational vs. Informational: There is a significant and consistence difference in survival patterns between conversational categories and informational categories: more conversational categories survive for longer

*with the exception* of “computer/internet” on Baidu only (cultural difference?)

Analysis: why do YA users stay longer

Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM-10)

We will be liveblogging (when possible) from ICWSM 2010, going on now!

Keynote: Bob Kraut, CMU

kraut keynote
implications for community design-offline theories of socialization helpful, not definitive
-online communities can build in good socialization practice-e.g. WP welcoming committee
Two Types of Commitments to Groups-identity based groups-bond based groups
Added Identity & Bond Features to MovieLens
Introduced Subgroups into MovieLens
Identity features that focus on subgroups
Individual profiles
bond-based design:+11% loginsidentity-based design:+44% logins
interventions based on theory increased commitmen
why stronger effect of identity?-time course: social identity can form instantaneously, bonds take time
new approaches to translate theory to design-ABMs
test identity vs. bond design via abm
incorporate design into abm
what are the consequences of discussion moderation-what type of moderation should be imposed? when?
results: indiv moderation helps logins
-personalized mod improves info and social benefit
-comm level mod improves info benefit only in homogeneous communities

***Influence and Composition in Social Networks***

Measuring Influence of Neighbors in Social Networks (Cosley Huttenlocher Kleinberg, Lan Suri)

Measuring Influence in 2 types of socnet data

-Crawl

–provides state of network at specific time

–often have more than one

-Complete time seties

–often from database dump

–provides timestamped history of all events

-This talk: How do measurements of social influence in these two settings compare?

Defining Influence

p(k) = Pr(individual adopts new behavior | k neighbors have)

Analyzing Influence in Wikipedia

-Wikipedia as a social network

–registered users (500K) represented by odes

–communicate through user talk pages

—Definition: Link between u and v forms at time t if one edited the other’s talk page at time t

-Definition: A community is a set of users who edited an article

-Analyze: Pr(user joins a community | k of his friends have)

Ordinal Time Method for Measuring Influence:

-p_o(k) = # instances (over all C) where u had k neighbors in C and joined/  # instances (over all C) where u had k neighbors in C

-advantage: very easy to interpret

-disadvantage: requires complete time series

Snapshot Time Method for Measuring Influence:

-2 snapshots of the network taken at times t1 and t2

p_s(k) = # instances (over all C) where u had k neighbors in C at t_1 and joined before t2 / #instances (over all C) where u had k neighbors in C at t1 and did not join before t1

-advantages: requires only a snapshot

-disadvantage: coarse-grained, don’t know changes in friends between t1 and t2

-results: p_o(k) behaves very differently from p_s(k) on Wikipedia

How are p_o(k) and p_s(k) different?

-accumulation effect in p_o(k) where community joining events can contribute to p_o(1)…p_o(k)

Approximating Ordinal Time from Snapshots

-At each snapshot know:

–which users joined which communities

–how many friends each user had in each community

-Don’t know exact number of friends user had when joined

-Assume a constant rate of getting friends

Ethnicity in Social Networks (Facebook Data Team)

-Questions about how ethnicities engage online are prevalent

-Our goal is to better understand ethnicity on social networks

-Issues

–How do we estimate ethnic distributions on social networks?

–Many services (e.g. Facebook) do not ask their users about their ethnicity

–Our approach infers ethnicities from surnames (based on previous approaches)

Topic modeling approach

-words are names, topics are ethnicities

-Generative process: Draw ethnic bareakdown of aggregate population w/Dirichlet distribution

–For each person draw ethnicity of individiual z_n ~ Multinomial

–Draw surname of individual based on ethnicity ~ Multinomial conditioned on ethnicity

Because there is no FB ground truth, we test our method by scraping 10k users from Myspace

Results: Model does a lot better than naive guessing based on census, internet usage statistics

Also tested on FB data (no ground truth but can have qual results):

1. In 2006, AsAm and White overrepresented on FB, by 2008 ethnicities much closer to mark

2. Drew heatmaps of US, showed that Whites concentrated in the northeast, Asians on the coasts, etc.

3. Correlated with politics: AsAm more likely to be liberal, Whites more likely to be conservative/libertarian

Homophily:

-Strong racial homophily (strongest in Hispanics and Blacks, weakest in Whites)

Homophily by ordinal friendships: racial homophily is strongest for the first few friendships a person makes

Friend you communicate with the most is most likely to be homophilous friend

Who makes friends in social media and why? Rich get Richer vs Seek and Ye Shall Find (Zeynep)

Importance of friendship and social networks vs. debate about social isolation

Architecture of our Commons

-Sociality does not happen in a vacuum

-Mediated Relationships (through digital means)

–Are these relationships: Superficial, weak, fake? Supplementary to offline sociality? As real or more?

–Why does this debate refuse to die?

-Assumptions:

–Internet communication: Anonymous, text-based, fleeting

–Lack of visual cues

but today’s Internet:

–social media: non-transitory interactions, lots of visual cues

Two dominant theories: Rich get Richer vs. Seek and Ye Shall Find

Data: Sample:

-College students

-617 respondents

-multiple classrooms

-very diverse school

-diverse majors

Results: feeling about whether online friendships are possible vs. not possible – split down the middle

Qualitative Component: why do respondents feel online friendships possible / not possible

*Not Possible reasons:

-trust

-face-to-face

-body language and mannerisms

-shared emotions and experiences

*Possible:

-deeper connections – easier (“it may even be easier online as it is all dialogue and no physical characteristics involved”)

-deeper connections – judgment

-bonding is possible

-conversation as key

-experience

***Diffusion and Dynamics in Networks***

Social Dynamics of Activity in a Virtual World (Bakshy et al.)

Second Life paper

Second Life: persistent, immersive virtual world

-User driven objects, economy, society

RQs: 1. How much economic activity occurs in virtual world?

2. Role of groups?

3. How much virtual interaction?

Data:

a) 65 mln user-user transactions (virtual goods)

b) Buddy graph – 4.2 million users, 43 million relationships, focus on strong edges: reciprocal and permissive (can see each other’s online status)

c) chat between 14 million pairs of users

d) 520k groups, 23 million user/group memberships

Economic Activity in Second Life

-Same “sectors” as realworld: retail, real estate, entertainment

-29 million free transactions, 36 million paid, power-law distribution of exchange amounts

Seller in detail: shows that interaction does not necessarily correspond to exchange

Analysis hints at Seller roles? Profiles?

Social Adoption

-show how friends of friends of initial buyers go on to buy as well. Is it influence or homophily? Not sure.

Role of Social ties

-39% of free transactions (but only 7% of paid) were between friends

-40% of users that chat exchange free items, 12% of users that chat engage in paid transactions

Free transactions may be more representative of social activity than paid transasctions

Role of Groups

-Groups indicate aspect of user interest

-Co-grouped transactions

-Sellers more likely to be connected to buyers through co-group than through friendship

Long discussion of why groups are proxy for connections

Explaining Seller Success

Traditional success measures: revenue, repeat business. Regression analysis

Key predictors:

For Revenue:

-Amount made by friends (homophily? business partnerships?)

-Make connections

-Less chatting with customers

-The younger crowd (newer to 2nd Life)

For Repeat Business:

-Interaction!

–Sharing a group, chatting

-More established crowd

-More diverse buyer base

Your Brain on Facebook (Fisher and Counts)

EEG: social vs. traditional media

Why do this? Possible input/feedback to social interaction systems. Short term: Inform design through better understanding of automatic info processing

EEG very good at detecting semantic mismatch

RQs: is Myspace associated with frivolity? Is connecting with friends on Facebook connected with feelings of intimacy?

Media and concepts:

-Media: TV, Books, Social, News

-Concepts: addictive, story, interesting, frivolous, personal, useful

-Showed both front page of FB and personal FB page (asked study participants to briefly friend study on Facebook)

Measurement and Method:

1. Timed, binary decision (low conscious reasoning)

2. Lijkert scale untimed survey (high conscious reasoning)

-Computer-based task: 24 combinations x 22 trials = 528 trials

-16 participants

Results (survey): FB more addictive, but less useful than news. Tells less of a story than books or TV. More frivolous than books, news. More personal than all other forms of media.

Results (decision taks): FB very addictive, tells less of a story than books or TV, a lot more personal than other forms of media. Overall, quite similar questionnaire responses.

Viz: heatmap of head. Time chart. In time chart, look for potential drop ~400 ms after stimulus. The more similar the media to the concept, the bigger the drop.

Results (eeg): FB equal to other media in terms of addictive, interesting, useful, frivolous. Tells less of a story than other media. Is less personal than other media.

Implications, suggestions, limitations

Media parity: FB as interesting, useful, addictive and not frivolous as other media

Personalization and self-identification: Purposeful connection building; easy switching to close friends, family; identity vs. bond attachment

Form of media found most personal by eeg? Books!

Telling stories – status updates on storylines?

Making it tangible: What’s the ratty, marked-up favorite book equivalent in social media? Photo album equivalent?

Limitations: only one form of social networking / media, limited subject population, can we believe EEG results?

Opportunities: compare online media, other subject populations, corroborate with other physiology, expand into real-time capture of physiology

Social Causality and Analysis of Interpersonal Relationships in Online Blogs and Forums (Roxana Girju)

Social causality: causal reasoning used by intelligent agents in a social environment

Modeling social causality – can guide conversation strategies, facilitate modeling and understanding of social emotions, bring new insights

Our focus: social causality as capture through analysis of interpersonal relations in social media

-Pervasive set of english reciprocal textual contexts encoding interpersonal relationships

-data: 11K reciprocal relationship contexts coded

Reciprocity in Language: “The Golden Rule”

Modeling relationships

Properties of interpersonal verbs and reciprocal instances: Symmetry, Affective Value (4-state HMM), Intentionality of Actions

-Intentionality and affective values of interpersonal verbs highly correlated with blame and responsibility

Analyzing Social Interactions:

-Overall 54.34% of dataset was encoded by ambiguous symmetric patterns

-top frequent verb pairs: need-need, love-love

-followed by: hate-hate, miss-miss…

-In general we love people who love/understand/care/need us

-Gender analysis: men initiate more often than females, retaliate more often than women, are more violent and aggressive (whereas women are more forgiving), but this depends on class of verb

-Men and women generally mutually respectful, it is only when respect is broken that responses may differ (e.g. women: cheat -> hate, despise, sue. men: cheat -> dump, divorce)

-Intentionality of actions: intentionality much more often perceived as intentional in bad-bad exchanges than in good-good exchanges

-Reciprocity Chains: Dyadic (formed between 2 people of the form A v B -> B v A -> A v B). Very useful in micro-levle social interaction analysis. General (between multiple people)

In generic chains: retaliation with increased magnitude chains, good for good chains (short), good for bad chains (turn the other cheek)

How does data sampling strategy impact discovery of information diffusion in social media? (Munmun)

How can we sample social web?

Many different modes of social interaction

Scale of interest – viral marketing, ad campaigns

Is there more in social media than just scale?

Social media can have enormous power, e.g. for diffusion

However, inference of such processes is based on the quality of data

Current methods: random walk, snowball – captures structure but not content or context

RQ1: what is role of context in sampling social phenomena, RQ2: how much should we sample to capture the process

Data: Twitter. Look at diffusion via RT feature, shared URl, same hashtag

Model: Diffusion series. Has slots of individuals involved in diffusion process, links between individuals based on relationships

Sampling strategies: given N, the number of nodes to pick, topic T, social graph G

Ignoring social graph: 1. Random sampling from seeds, 2. Attribute / context sampling.

Using social graph: Forest fire (again, random or attribute)

Diffusion Saturation Metrics: user-based (volume, participation, dissemination). Topology-based: (Reach, spread, cascade instances, collection size), Time-based: rate

Our sample S distorts some metric M

Diffusion response metrics: correlate diffusion on twitter to external behavior (search and news trends)

Experimental Study

Reference Set: ~465K users, 836K edges, 30M tweets. 125 randomly chosen “trending topics” from Twitter between Oct and Nov 2009

Trending topic – theme association

Results: bias due to sampling consistent, best results come out of forest fire. For search trends, forest fire + location performs best, for news trends, forest fire + activity performs best

Larger-scale analysis: look at topic distribution by sampling strategy

Inferences about social data affected by sampling strategy. Topic + topology + seed attribute makes a difference to sampling.

Photo Tagging over Time: A Longtitudinal Study of the Role of Attention, Network Density and Motivations (Paul Russo)

Tagging over time

Overview: what factors influence users to tag?

RQs:

1. How do individual motivations affect tagging,

2. what effect does receiving attention from users affect tagging tenure

Data: Flickr – focused on established users

Individual Motivations:

-People tag for themselves (archiving, retreival) and for others (describing)

-Many ways to receive attention from others

-Huberman, Romeru, Wu demonstrated that on YuTube people whose work received more views tended to post more videos, leading to a submission cycle

-Lento et al. photo tagging behavior

New: look at network strucutre (clustering coefficient)

-Mutual Friends

H1: attention, enjoyment, commitment should increase tagging. Density should decrease tagging. ((blogger comment: what about social grooming?))

Method: 90 days of tagging on Flickr, used only “pro” users w/3 months tenure

-Combines user-reported (survey) data and system data: what people say and what they do

-Attention: comments, Density = network, motivation = survey, measured on Likert scale.

-DV = #tags/photo over 90 days

-Results: generally bear out hypotheses.

-Interesting: low density net individuals tag more than high density for same lev of attention, but higher levels of attention lead to more tagging regardless of density. On the other hand, density has positive slope w.r.t. to commitment and tagging only for low density networks, for high density networks higher levels of attention lead to less tagging for high density.

***Microblogging***

Microblogging Inside and Outside the Workplace (Ehrlich and Shami)

Method: Twitter vs. Bluetwit (internal tool)

Data: 34 users from 15 countries and 8 business units that used both Twitter and Bluetwit and 20 posts in each over 4 month period

-Twitter much more active than Bluetwit

Dataset: data collected for BlueTwit and Twitter over 4 month period. 19K posts in two tools. Extracted 4 weeks of tweets.

Manually coded 5k microblogging posts

codes: status, providing information, retweet, ask question, directed, directed q

Results:

Categories of Posts: Most frequent use – provide information, directed posts

Internal use: ask questions, directed posts, style is work-oriented

External use: provide information, style is more “social”

Public vs. Private: clear sense of what is appropriate for an internal-only audience

Reputation Management: Internal: importance of giving back

External: Publicity and Promotion

Fostering Connections: developing better awareness of professional connections in advance of a future planned or unplanned meeting

Consumption of microblogs:

-Microblogs provide early access to human selected information

Discussion:

-How is microblogging useful in a work context?

–Form of crowd-sourcing – asking questions and providing answers

–Anticipatory connections

-What differs between public and private?

–Confidentiality (very clear)

–Style of writing

–Awareness of audience knowledge and interests

–Some erosion of boundaries – despite difference lots overlap

-Why are people consuming microblogs?

–Motivation for posting – Building reputation, awareness

–Motivation for reading – early, quality news

Measuring Influence in Twitter: the Million Follower Fallacy (Cha et al.)

Goal: characterize influence in social media and study its dynamics

1. How can we measure influence of a single user?

2. Does influence of user hold across topics?

3. What behaviors make ordinary users influential?

Data: Twitter

Why Twitter? One of most popular social media, social links are primary way how information flows, traditional media soruces and word-of-mouth coexist in this environment

-54m users, 2B follow links, 1.7B links

–8.5% of profiles private

–95% users belong to the giant component

–low reciprocity (10%)

–Power law degree distribution w/extremely large hubs (500 users have more than 100K followers)

–Low tweeting activity in general (only 11% of all users posted at least 10 tweets)

Three measures of influence:

1. Indegree

2. Mentions

3. Retweets

Are these three measures related? Compared relative ranks of user across 3 measures using spearman’s rank corellation

Correlated for full population, but not for top 10% or top 1% (but retweets corr mention remains high)

top list of indegree = mix of news outlets and public figures, top retweets = celebrities, etc.

Million follower fallacy – Britney Spears has millions of followers but she doesn’t show up on top retweeted list

Measuring influence:

–Find users engage in multiple topics. Picked 3 popular topics in 2009 over 2 month period, iran election, death of  MJ, swine flu

–Focused on 13k people who talked about all 3 topics

Conclusion: just because you have a lot of followers doesn’t mean they retweet you

Along a similar idea, Tweets vs. followers in NodeXL:

Directed Closure Process in Hybrid Social-Information Networks w/Focus on Link Formation on Twitter (Romero and Kleinberg)

How do directed closed triads form?

Triadic closure vs. directed closure:

-Triadic: an edges connects 2 nodes who already have a common neighbor

-Directed: a node A links to node C to which it already has a 2-step path (through node B)

-An edge in directed graph exhibits closure if it completes a 2-step path

-Closure ratio of node C is the fraction of C’s incoming edges that exhibit closure

-could indicates how many nodes discovered C by following nodes that follow C

Data: random sample of 18 twiter micro-celebrities: Users with between 10K and 50K followers

Notation: user A is k-linked to C if A follows C and also follows k followers of C. Let s_k(C) denote set of followers k-linked to C. f(s_k(C)) = fraction of set whose edge to C exhibits closure.

Q1: Is directed closure a significant process? Randomization test

A: up to large k, f(s_k(C)) is significantly bigger than one would expect under random ordering

Observation: f(s_K(C)) increases with k, but flattens out. Why??

Properties observed: closure ratio saturates to a positive constant f, constant f is different for different micro-celebrities, constant f not closely related to total in-degree of micro-celebrity

Heuristic calculation suggests that the sum of in-degrees of incoming nodes closely predicts closure ratio

Improved Model: predict closure ratio not just by in-degree but by sum of in-degree of incoming nodes. Also sum of in-degrees of incoming nodes from same community predicts closure ratio even better!

Conclusion: definition and methodology for directed closure, evidence for directed closure on Twitter, evidence that sum of in-degrees of incoming nodes & nodes from same community predicts closure ratio on Twitter

Characterizing Microblogs with Topic Models (Ramage, Dumais and Liebling)

Do people like the posts they see?

43 users at MSR looked at 60 posts, judged as: “not really worth reading <-> maybe worth time spent reading <-> worth the time spent reading.”

the average judgment was maybe or worse, nobody on average judged posts as worth time

Fundamental problem: people followed <> Tweets worth reading

What factors go into deciding if a user is worth following?

Method: Structured interviews with heavy users, Broader survey of 56 Twitter users

Kinds of Topics for Tweets. Hobbies, professions, news, products, events = Substance. Updates about meals, travel, hygiene = status. Making plans, networking, staying in touch = Social. Humor, wit, whininess, diction, worldview = Style. Different topics liked by different users.

Shows that content is important.

Content modeling: 8.2m “Spritzer” Tweets from 2008

-Surface word features = tf idf cosine similarity, etc.

-won’t look at deeper features (e.g. parsing) – not very appropriate for Tweets

-Desparsify: Topic Models, LDA.

-Want some labels (hashtags, emoticons, questions, etc.) = Naive Bayes, SVM, etc.

-Combined surface word features, LDA, labels = labeled LDA

Content modeling with labeled LDA:

1. Discover unlabeled topics w/ k=200 latent topic dimensions (e.g. politics, sleep)

2. model common labels = 500-1000 dimensions for hashtags, emoticons, etc.

Twitter content by category: manually aggregate topics into one or more of 45 categories.

Results: 38% style, 23% social, 27% substance, 12% status

Treemap-like visualization

Filtering: Tweet stream re-ranking

Split rater’s post into train 70% and test 30%

re-rank test set by distance to positive examples

consider judgment of maybe or worth time as “positive”

Mean reciprocal Rank @ 1 Relevant: best performance = Labeled LDA + tf-idf, .75

Finding: User recommendation task

Rater’s followed user: train 6/7 followers and test 1/7. Find the test user among 8 other non-followed users. Ranking task: score by reciprocal rank of test user. Performance > .9

Next steps: better interfaces for finding and filtering and models that account for temporal dynamics

The oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a topic of great concern to many people in twitter.

This is the map of connections among people who tweeted the term “oil spill”.  There are lots of isolated authors, people who tweeted “oil spill” but are not connected to anyone else who said the same phrase.  The “giant component” is relatively sparse, there is no dense core of “oil spill” people yet.  This is in contrast with many topics where a large, highly interconnected cluster of people defines the “center” of the discussion.  This term remains highly diffuse.

This is the map of connections among people who tweeted the term “BP”.

The BP map also has a large population of isolates, people who are not part of  a “BP” related conversation but have said the term. A small core of highly interconnected users is forming in the “BP” hashtag space but in contrast to a term like “solar”, there is still little cohesion and density in its core.

This is the map of connections among people who tweeted the term “solar”.

This is a topic with a more dense core of highly interconnected Twitter users who share the use of the string “solar” in their tweets.  Ranks of isolates are also present in this topic space but the giant component is more internall connected and cohesive.

Are social media sites data banks, secure repositories of personal assets, or data pimps, soliciting intimate exposure for profit?

I think these services need to choose.  I notice that the setting for who can see what in various systems is in flux.  I can set something to private today and may have to reset it keep it private later.

When I upload content to a site, shouldn’t the expectation be that the deposit is governed by the terms at the time of the contribution?  Why should terms change after I upload?  At least, shouldn’t new rules apply only to new content or content explicitly that has had permissions altered.

Banks do lend out the money I provide them, but only in an anonymous way.  No one knows my dollars are in their mortgage or car loan.  Only legally authorized entities can see my banking records (or so I hope).

Data pimps seem to want to give away anything I give up.  They sell my data as quickly and for as much as possible.

Banks have now developed a reputation that does not make them a great contrast for data pimps, but they still try to represent values like security, confidentiality, and reliability.

I have personally assumed that all data I upload is public.  Only my pictures of my kids have been made “private” and I would not be surprised if those pictures ultimately become public.

Photo credit: cambodia4kidsorg

Here is an example: http://twitpic.com/9rvfq

It provides a good illustration of the ways a person’s social network is clumped into clusters built around life phases, workplaces, educational institutions, teams and locations.  As people move through more of these stages of life during the Facebook era (and often before) they accumulate these clusters.

Facebook or other contact and friend management systems might could leverage this clustering to organize the presentation of contact information streams.

Bernie recently announced on the SOCNET list that he has updated his script for downloading your Facebook network.

“Features:

1. Its faster. (Presently orders of magnitude faster than Nexus, Touchgraph or ORA).
2. It gives nice feedback during the download.
3. It has less bugs!
4. It gives you the output as a file you can right-click and save rather than copy-paste.
5. IDs are names.”

Bernie writes that phase two of his project is underway.

Bernie is planning a demo at the Sunbelt social network analysis conference in Italy in 2010.

Bernie is the author of the Facebook chapter in our forthcoming book Analyzing Social Media Networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world available from Morgan-Kaufmann in July 2010.

There are hundreds of conferences sponsored by the ACM on almost every topic related to computing.  In some cases the same person will publish a paper in more than one conference, creating a tie between them.  Below is a network map application that displays a collection of ACM conferences connected by this authorship tie: http://bosch.informatik.rwth-aachen.de:5080/AERCS/Networks.jsp

The application is a project created by Manh Cuong Pham a graduate student at RWTH Aachen University, Dept. of Databases and Information Systems working with Prof. Ralf Klamma.

This image displays the isolated component that is composed of the “social” conferences in the ACM schedule: CHI, CSCW, DIS, UIST, GROUP, ECSCW, and Interact.  The overview illustrates the macro structure of the graph, with the prominent giant cluster of core computer science topics like algorithms, machine learning, and logic.  The rows below this cluster are populated by an archipelago of conferences, a few composed of ten to twenty conferences, but most made up of two to five conferences.  These are the more marginal topics in the ACM world, in contrast to the conferences at the cores of the giant component.

It would be nice to see the application add additional network display attributes like size, color, shape, edge thickness to indicate conference attributes like papers published, cited, attendees, and sponsors.  It is a nice example of the insights network visualizations can bring to a data set and the value of an interactive interface (and a web interface at that!) for investigating complex graphs.

The deck illustrates the use of NodeXL to extract several social media networks from systems like twitter and facebook to generate maps of communities and identify people and objects in key locations.

I. Introduction

Introduction to Communities in Cyberspace, Peter Kollock and Marc Smith

“Since 1993, computer networks have grabbed enormous public attention. The major news and entertainment media have been filled with stories about the “information superhighway” and of the financial and political fortunes to be made on it. Computer sales continue to rise and more and more people are getting connected to “the Net”. Computer networks, once an obscure and arcane set of technologies used by a small elite, are now widely used and the subject of political debate, public interest, and popular culture. The “information superhighway” competes with a collection of metaphors that attempt to label and define these technologies. Others, like “cyberspace,” “the Net,” “online,” and “the web,” highlight different aspects of network technology and its meaning, role and impact. Whichever term is used, it is clear that computer networks allow people to create a range of new social spaces in which to meet and interact with one another.”

More details from the book…

II. Identity

Identity and deception in the virtual community, Judith S. Donath, MIT Media Lab

“Identity plays a key role in virtual communities. In communication, which is the primary activity, knowing the identity of those with whom you communicate is essential for understanding and evaluating an interaction. Yet in the disembodied world of the virtual community, identity is also ambiguous. Many of the basic cues about personality and social role we are accustomed to in the physical world are absent. The goal of this paper is to understand how identity is established in an online community and to examine the effects of identity deception and the conditions that give rise to it.”

Reading Race Online: Discovering Racial Identity in Usenet Discussions, Byron Burkhalter (UCLA, Sociology)

Writing in the Body: Gender (Re)Production in Cyber Interactions, Jodi O’Brien (Seattle University, Sociology)

III Social Order and Control

Hierarchy and Power: Social Control in Cyberspace, Elizabeth Reid (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Communications)

Hierarchies and power on MUDs-the text-based multi-player virtual reality games found on the Internet-rely on the control of players’ abilities to manipulate the virtual environment. Social status on a MUD is linked to a player’s ability to manipulate the virtual components of the system; rewards consist of increased access to such world-manipulating tools. In Power/Knowledge Foucault described an effective form of power as one that enables the powerful to “gain access to the bodies of individuals, to their acts, attitudes and modes of everyday behaviour.” On a MUD, where the physical body is not present, but the virtual body is at the absolute mercy of those who control the system, such power exists. The theatre of authority in a MUD is one which demands and facilitates a strongly dramaturgical element. Underlying each MUD system are cohesive social structures which centre on control and the manipulation of game elements. Every piece of information a player integrates into the MUD universe permits and assures the exercise of power. Speaking and writing-transmitting knowledge-are acts of literal power in the virtual reality of a MUD, and permit the creation of hierarchies of social control.

Problems of Conflict Management in Virtual Communities, Anna DuVal Smith (Case Western Reserve University, School of Management)

This paper explores the sources of conflict and techniques of social control in an open-access, text-based virtual community. It argues that such social systems have the same kinds of opportunities and problems brought by diversity that real communities do, but that unique features of cyberspace make effective conflict management both more important and more difficult. Cases of interpersonal disputes collected during 22 months of participant observation revealed that power strategies of social control were generally counterproductive in managing the conflict that resulted from the multiplicity of values, goals, interests and cultural norms brought by members of the community. As in real life, methods that reconcile divergent interests mediation and factfinding) and adjudicate rights (factfinding and arbitration) appeared to manage issue-based conflicts more effectively. However, their utility and, therefore, the community’s ability to adapt and thrive as an open, goal-directed system depends on member awareness of the program, human resource availability and administration willingness to share power.

IV Community Structure and Dynamics

Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities, Barry Wellman & Milena Gulia (University of Toronto, Sociology)

Invisible Crowds in Cyberspace: Measuring and Mapping the USENET , Marc Smith (UCLA, Sociology)

The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace, Peter Kollock (UCLA, Sociology)

V Collective Action

The Promise and the Peril of Social Action in Cyberspace: Ethos, Delivery, and the Protests over MarketPlace and the Clipper Chip, Laura J. Gurak (University of Minnesota, Rhetoric)

In April 1990, Lotus Development Corporation announced a product called MarketPlace: Households. MarketPlace was to be a direct mail marketing database for Macintosh computers and would contain name, address, and spending habit information on 120 million individual American consumers. After MarketPlace was announced, computer privacy advocates began investigating the product. Although most of the data contained in MarketPlace was already available (data was provided by Equifax, the second largest credit reporting agency in the United States), privacy advocates felt that MarketPlace went beyond current standards for privacy protection. Having the data so readily available to a mass market of personal computer users extended the existing network of information sources in the US, including credit profiles, grocery store checkout scanning systems, and government files. Furthermore, the data was provided on the non-correctable media of CD-ROM; therefore, if an entry was in error, it could not be corrected. And although Lotus did include certain privacy protection measures when designing the product, privacy advocates were not convinced.

From Lotus’s first announcement until months after it canceled the product, the Internet was full of discussions about MarketPlace; soon, debates about the privacy implications of MarketPlace and suggestions for contacting Lotus began to circulate. People posted Lotus’s address and phone number, the email address of Lotus’s CEO, and also gave information about how to request that names be removed from the database. Some people posted “form letters” that could be sent to Lotus. Notices were forwarded around the Internet, re-posted to other newsgroups, and sent off as email messages. In one case, a discussion group was formed specifically to discuss the product. As a result of the Internet-based protest, over 30,000 people contacted Lotus and asked that their names be removed from the database. The product, which had been scheduled to be released during the third quarter of 1990, was never released. In January 1991, Lotus issued a press release announcing that it would cancel MarketPlace: Households. In the end, many acknowledged the role of networks in stopping the release of MarketPlace. Some subsequently called it “[a] victory for computer populism” (Winner).

Electronic Homesteading on the Rural Frontier: Big Sky Telegraph and its Community, Willard Uncapher (University of Texas at Austin, Communications).

This chapter provides an overview of an ethnography exploring the introduction of a low cost computer mediated conferencing and communication system into the rural Montana one room school system and develops a framework based on the conflicts between the material economy using information technology to organize global economies of scale and an online gift economies and social scale to explore the informatization of rural communities. The paper proposes that we should not limit our analysis of online communities simply to online behavior.

Based on interview, site visits, and an extensive collection of secondary materials, primarily between January 1988 when Big Sky Telegraph first went online, and January 1990, the research provides a case study of the way social, cultural, economic, and pre-existing communication arrangements come to frame the uses of the new technology, even as they are transformed by them. Not all communities are transformed equally, and those users, such as rural teachers and women wanting to change their lives provided a base of new users, while the ranching and farming community was more circumspect. The social differences would impact not only online behavior, but how behavior gets online, and even how the borders between these worlds are imagined.

Cyberspace and Disadvantaged Communities: The Internet as a Tool for Collective Action, Christopher Mele (State University of New York at Buffalo, Sociology)

This chapter recounts the collective action of an organized group of African-American women residents of Jervay Place, a low-income housing development in Wilmington, North Carolina, and their use of online communication to attempt to challenge not only the immediate issue of adequate housing but their position within the unequal power relationship between African-American women and white elite-dominated institutions. In the case of Jervay, collective action emerged in response to the housing authority’s exclusion of residents as agents in the planning for the site’s future. Their efforts at mobilization and resistance and the reactions of the housing authority were particularly embedded in the local and historical context of power and race. Ultimately, in order to challenge the unilateral decisions of the housing authority effectively, resident determined it was necessary to circumvent the local customary (paternalist) forms of interaction that have long existed between disenfranchised African-Americans and local political and social institutions. Use of online communication afforded the women an opportunity to operate outside the local and exclusive pathways of information, discourse and social action controlled by the institution of the housing authority. In a broader sense, their grassroots networking activities online subverted longstanding local articulations of power. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of online communication for mediation of historically unequal relations between disadvantaged groups and social institutions.

]]> http://www.connectedaction.net/2009/12/15/book-communities-in-cyberspace-ten-years-later/feed/ 4 http://www.connectedaction.net/2009/12/14/call-for-papers-icwsm-2010-washington-d-c-may-23-26/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=call-for-papers-icwsm-2010-washington-d-c-may-23-26 http://www.connectedaction.net/2009/12/14/call-for-papers-icwsm-2010-washington-d-c-may-23-26/#comments Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:00:36 +0000 Marc Smith http://www.connectedaction.net/?p=1821 Here is the Call for Papers for the

Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM-10)
May 23-26, 2010
George Washington University, Washington, DC

Sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence

IMPORTANT DATES:
Tutorial Proposals: December 1, 2009
Paper Submission: January 8, 2010
Poster/Demo Submission: January 8, 2010
Paper Acceptance: March 3, 2010
Poster/Demo Acceptance: March 3, 2010
Workshop Submission: March 1, 2010
Camera Ready Copies: March 12, 2010

Featuring a keynote by:
Professor Bob Kraut, CMU,
on “Designing Online Communities from Theory”

Professor Michael Kearns, Computer and Information Science,
Univ. of Pennsylvania,
on “Behavioral Experiments in Strategic Networks”

Speakers in Special Sessions:
- Nicole Ellison, Dept. of Telecommunication,
Information Studies and Media, Michigan State Univ.
- James Pennebaker, Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Texas, Austin
- S. Craig Watkins, Dept. of Radio, TV and Film, Univ. of Texas, Austin- Don Burke, CIA Directorate of Science and Technology, Intellipedia
- Haym Hirsh, National Science Foundation IIS Division Director
- Macon Phillips, U.S. White House, Head of New Media

Tutorial Speakers will include:
- Jake Hofman, Yahoo! Research,
“Large-scale social media analytics with Hadoop”

- Cindy Chung and James Pennebaker, Univ. Texas,
“Using LIWC to uncover social psychology in social media”

TECHNICAL AREAS
More specifically, ICWSM welcomes submissions from researchers in a number of disciplines:
- Computational Linguistics/NLP
- Text Mining/Data Mining/Machine Learning
- Psychology
- Sociology (including Social Network Analysis)
- Anthropology, Communications, Media Studies
- Visualization
- HCI
- Graph theory, concrete analysis and simulation of graphical models

Submissions are welcome that study a broad array of types social data, including:
- Weblogs, including comments
- Social Networking Sites
- Microblogs
- Wikis (wikipedia)
- Forums, usenet
- Community media sites: youtube, flickr

Technical topics of interest include:
- Psychological, personality-based and ethnographic studies of social media
- Analyzing the relationship between social media and mainstream media
- Qualitative and quantitative studies of social media
- Centrality/influence of social media publications and authors
- Ranking/relevance of blogs; web page ranking based on blogs
- Social network analysis; communities identification; expertise and authority discovery; collaborative filtering
- Trust; reputation; recommendation systems
- Human computer interaction; social media tools; navigation and visualization
- Subjectivity in textual data; sentiment analysis; polarity/opinion identification and extraction
- Text categorization; topic recognition; demographic/gender/age identification
- Trend identification and tracking; time series forecasting; measuring predictability of phenomena based on social media
- New social media applications; interfaces; interaction techniques

SUBMISSION
People interested in participating should submit through the ICWSM-10 website a technical paper (up to 8 pages, not including references),poster or demo description (up to 4 pages) by the deadlines given above (Midnight PST). Papers must be must be formatted in AAAI two-column, camera-ready style (see the AAAI author instructions page at http://www.aaai.org/Publications/Author/author.php). Details for the submission procedure will appear at the conference website: http://icwsm.org

PUBLICATION
All accepted papers and abstracts will be allocated eight (8) pages in the conference proceedings. Authors will be required to transfer copyright of their paper to AAAI.

DATA CHALLENGE
ICWSM-10 will once again hold a data challenge featuring a freely-available dataset and a half-day workshop at the conference. Details will be posted on the conference website.

CONFERENCE WEBSITE
www.icwsm.org

For general information regarding ICWSM-10, please write to icws…@aaai.org. More details about the CFP and the conference will appear on the website over time.

ORGANIZERS:
Program Chairs:
William Cohen, CMU Computer Science
Samuel Gosling, U Texas Dept of Psychology

General Chair:
Marti Hearst, UC Berkeley School of Information

Senior Program Committee Members:
Lada Adamic, Univ. of Michigan
danah boyd, Microsoft Research
Claire Cardie, Cornell Univ.
Kathleen Carley, Carnegie Mellon Univ.
Chris Diehl, Lawrence Livermore National Labs
Nicole Ellison, Dept of Telecommunication, Information Studies, Michigan State University
Lise Getoor, Univ. of Maryland
Jure Leskovec, Stanford Univ.
Winter Mason, Yahoo! Research
Kate Neiderhoffer, Dachis Corporation
Eugene Agichtein, Emory Univ.
Cindy Chung, Univ. of Texas at Austin
Scott Counts, Microsoft Research
Tim Finin, UMBC
Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Yahoo! Research
Kristina Lerman, ISI-USC
Jure Leskovec
Winter Mason
Gilad Mishne, Yahoo! Labs
Bo Pang, Yahoo! Research
Marc Smith, Connected Action Consulting Group

Next week I will be attending and discussing mobile social media and social networks at the Mobile Web Africa conference in Johannesburg, South Africa. It is my first time to Africa and I am excited to both visit and to discuss how mobile networked devices can change social organizations.  Mobile devices are in many ways more important in emerging and developing regions where the availability of these tools enable the first voice and data services that have ever been affordable and reliable, let alone mobile.  There are vast opportunities in this space, a topic well reviewed in the recent issue of the Economist:

The Mobile Web Africa event will focus on these key questions:

1. How will the industry evolve to a point where the vast majority of people have access to the mobile web and the content they want to view?
2. How will the industry fully exploit existing and future opportunities?
3. How can PC or mobile based developers and start-ups monetise their innovation and creativity to grow in to companies that will drive the expansion of the ecosystem?
4. How can Operators, Original Equipment Manufacturers, global associations and other mobile powerhouses assist their smaller partners?
5. How can societal and economic problems be tackled by the development of the capabilities of the mobile device?
6. What handsets, standards, networks and designs will allow consumers to successfully access the content and consume it?
7. How will the consumer be able to discover that content – through an Application, Browser, Search Engine, Advert, Social Network?

I will focus my discussion on the idea of the “Electrification of the Interaction Order” and topics related to the growing use of sensors on mobile devices and the sharing of the resulting data.  A service like SenseNetworks is a  good example of a mobile data collection, analysis, and presentation service.  Other sites, like Quantified Self, CureTogether, and FitBit, are examples of the social movements, web applications, and devices that are emerging in the self-monitoring medical tracking space.  These communities overlap with the trail based exercise communities of runners, bikers, skaters, hikers, and skiers, some with artistic inclinations.  I see a new wave of devices that are extensively quantify your “self” and “others”, perhaps when people swap sensor data with one another.  The recent work of Nathan Eagle and his co-authors illustrate the possibilities of using many devices with (already existing and widely used) sensors can generate remarkable maps of human behavior.  Much of this data will take the form of social networks as people are linked by “hyperties” – forms of association and connection that are authored by machines from the records of association and behavior.  People will be linked who have never met, in the same way that web book store customers who have never met can be linked by common browse and purchase patterns.  Hyperties will be formed by shared use of location, even if at different times, or patterns created by passing through different spaces at different times but in common patterns (Starbucks, then gas?  Or subway then tea shop?).  The notion of “Tribes” used by the SenseNetworks company is a good example of this approach.    The Economist is all over this topic, with another article “Mobile phones Sensors and sensitivity” that captures the topic.  Jonathan Donner’s work is also a good resource for insights on the role of mobile technology in many parts of the world.  The ability to enable a form of banking service is a particular benefit for the many people who do not have access to banking services.

This weekend is the Social Computing 2009 conference in Vancouver, B.C.  It is a gathering of many people doing research on social media useage.  Many papers are about tagging systems, blogs, wikis, message boards, and social networking services.

Along with several co-authors, I contributed to three papers in this year’s conference:

Bonsignore, E.M., Dunne, C., Rotman, D., Smith, M., Capone, T., Hansen, D.L. & Shneiderman, B. (2009), “First steps to NetViz Nirvana: evaluating social network analysis with NodeXL”, In SIN ’09: Proc. international symposium on Social Intelligence and Networking. IEEE Computer Society Press.

Abstract: Social Network Analysis (SNA) has evolved as a popular, standard method for modeling meaningful, often hidden structural relationships in communities. Existing SNA tools often involve extensive pre-processing or intensive programming skills that can challenge practitioners and students alike. NodeXL, an open-source template for Microsoft Excel, integrates a library of common network metrics and graph layout algorithms within the familiar spreadsheet format, offering a potentially low-barrier to-entry framework for teaching and learning SNA. We present the preliminary findings of 2 user studies of 21 graduate students who engaged in SNA using NodeXL. The majority of students, while information professionals, had little technical background or experience with SNA techniques. Six of the participants had more technical backgrounds and were chosen specifically for their experience with graph drawing and information visualization. Our primary objectives were (1) to evaluate NodeXL as an SNA tool for a broad base of users and (2) to explore methods for teaching SNA. Our complementary dual case-study format demonstrates the usability of NodeXL for a diverse set of users, and significantly, the power of a tightly integrated metrics/visualization tool to spark insight and facilitate sensemaking for students of SNA.

Abstract: Broadening adoption of social media applications within the enterprise offers a new and valuable data source for insight into the social structure of organizations. Social media applications generate networks when employees use features to create “friends” or “contact” networks, reply to messages from other users, edit the same documents as others, or mention the same or similar topics. The resulting networks can be analyzed to reveal basic insights into an organization’s structure and dynamics. The creation and analysis of sample social media network datasets is described to illustrate types of enterprise networks and considerations for their analysis.

Abstract: Community based Question and Answer systems have been promoted as web 2.0 solutions to the problem of finding expert knowledge. This promise depends on systems’ capacity to attract and sustain experts capable of offering high quality, factual answers. Content analysis of dedicated contributors’ messages in the Live QnA system found: (1) few contributors who focused on providing technical answers (2) a preponderance of attention paid to opinion and discussion, especially in non-technical threads. This paucity of experts raises an important general question: how do the social affordances of a site alter the ecology of roles found there? Using insights from recent research in online community, we generate a series of expectations about how social affordances are likely to alter the role ecology of online systems.

A new book E-Research: Transformation in Scholarly Practice edited by Nicholas W. Jankowski on the ways social science research is being changed by the rise of social media has just been released by Routledge.  My colleagues and I contributed a chapter on the ways that information visualization of social media is a useful technique to identify research questions and discover answers about the nature of human association when mediated by computation.  The volume contains work from an all-star line-up of researchers who address the opportunities and challenges of performing research with computer-mediated data about social life.

The blurb about the book describes it as:

“No less than a revolutionary transformation of the research enterprise is underway. This transformation extends beyond the natural sciences, where ‘e-research’ has become the modus operandi, and is penetrating the social sciences and humanities, sometimes with differences in accent and label. Many suggest that the very essence of scholarship in these areas is changing. The everyday procedures and practices of traditional forms of scholarship are affected by these and other features of e-research. This volume, which features renowned scholars from across the globe who are active in the social sciences and humanities, provides critical reflection on the overall emergence of e-research, particularly on its adoption and adaptation by the social sciences and humanities.”

Our chapter is “A Picture is Worth a Thousand Questions: Visualization Techniques for Social Science Discovery in Computational Spaces”, co-authored by  Howard T. Welser, Thomas Lento, Marc Smith, Eric Gleave and Itai Himelboim.  In it, we describe the ways that using information visualizations of social media data sets is a useful way of discovering insights, patterns, and clusters.  We illustrate the paper with several examples of social media information visualizations that display the range of behavior among contributors to social media spaces.

Here is the table of contents for the volume:
Introduction
1. The Context and Challenges of e-Research Nicholas W. Jankowski.

Conceptualization
2. Towards a Sociology of e-Research: Shaping Practice and Advancing Knowledge Ralph Schroeder and Jenny Fry
3. e-Research as Intervention Anne Beaulieu and Paul Wouters.

Development
4. Developing the UK-based e-Social Science Research Program Peter Halfpenny, Rob Procter, Yu-Wei Lin and Alex Voss
5. e-Research and Scholarly Community in the Humanities Paul Genoni, Helen Merrick and Michele Willson
6. The Rise of e-Science in Asia: Dreams and Realities for Social Science Research. Case Studies of Singapore and South Korea Carol Soon and Han Woo Park.

Collaboration
7. Creating Shared Understanding across Distance: Distance Collaboration across Cultures In R&D Petra Sonderegger
8. Moving from Small Science to Big Science: Social and Organizational Impediments to Large Scale Data Sharing Eric T. Meyer.

Visualization
9. Visualization in e-Social Science Mike Thelwall
10. A Picture is Worth a Thousand Questions: Visualization Techniques for Social Science Discovery in Computational Spaces Howard T. Welser, Thomas Lento, Marc Smith, Eric Gleave and Itai Himelboim.

Data Preservation and Reuse
11. Web Archiving as e-Research Steven M. Schneider, Kirsten A. Foot and Paul Wouters
12. The Promise of Data in e-Research: Many Challenges, Multiple Solutions, Diverse Outcomes Ann Zimmerman, Nathan Bos, Judy S. Olson and Gary M. Olson
13. Naming, Documenting and Contributing to e-Science Samuelle Carlson and Ben Anderson.

Access and Intellectual Property
14. Open Access to e-Research Robert Lucas and John Willinsky
15. Intellectual Property in the Context of e-Science Dan L. Burk.

Case Studies
16. Situated Innovations in e-Social Science Bridgette Wessels and Max Craglia
17. Wikipedia as Distributed Knowledge Laboratory: The Case of Neoliberalism Clifford Tatum and Michele LaFrance

My colleagues Derek Hansen and Ben Shneiderman (University of Maryland) and I have just finished the second version of our tutorial/manual for the NodeXL social network analysis toolkit for Excel.

The latest version of the tutorial Analyzing Social Media Networks: Learning by Doing with NodeXL is now available from the University of Maryland Center for the Advanced Study of Communities and Information (CASCI) web site.  We will use this version of the document in our upcoming tutorial at the Communities and Technologies conference at Penn State University on June 24th.

We plan to continue to expand the tutorial to include a step-by-step guide to the analysis of several major social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, YouTube, delicious, and flickr as well as personal stores of social media like your own email (if it is stored in a Windows Search Index found on most Windows desktops).  Our goal is to create an easy-to-follow guide to network theory for people who new to the field or who do not want to develop programming skills to perform network analysis.  We are focused on social media as a data source for social media although other examples are included,  like the United States Senate voting network that reveals interesting patterns in the connections created when votes are cast.  Using 2007 data it reveals which Senators are most likely to change party affiliation.

Your comments, corrections, and suggestions for improving the document are welcome.

Instructors interested in teaching classes about social networks are welcome to make use of both the NodeXL toolkit and the document to guide students through the core concepts of social network theory.

Here is the table of contents:

1) Basic: Getting started with NodeXL

Data entry
Showing the graph
Highlighting an edge
Importing an edge list

2) Layout: Arranging Vertices in the Graph Pane

Automatic Layout
Directed Graph Type
Updating the Graph Pane
Manual Layout
Preserving manual layout
Zooming and Scale

3) Visual Design: Making network displays meaningful

Vertex Colors
Adding Descriptive Data
Changing Vertex Size (and other properties)
AutoFilling Columns
Legend
Changing General Graph Appearance

4) Labeling: adding text labels to vertices and links

Adding Primary Labels
Adding Secondary Labels
Adding Tooltips

5) Graph Metrics: Calculating and visualizing metrics

Computing Graph Metrics
Saving a NodeXL File
Kite Network Example
Opening an existing NodeXL File
Overall Metrics
Vertex Metrics
Degree
Betweenness Centrality
Closeness Centrality
Eigenvector Centrality
Clustering Coefficient

6) Preparing Data: Merging Edges and Sorting to Label Data

SeriousEats Analysis
Merging Duplicate Edges
Sorting Data
Auto-Filling Data Columns
Formulas

7) Filtering: Reducing clutter to reveal important features

Dynamic Filters
Filtering by Autofilling the Visibility Column
Subgraph Images
Putting It All Together

Clustering: Identifying and displaying vertex clusters

2007 Senate Voting Analysis
Creating Clusters Manually
Changing Advanced Layout Options
Creating Clusters Automatically
Showing and Hiding Clusters

Penn State hosts C&T 2009

Derek Hansen (University of Maryland) and I will be running a workshop as part of the Communities and Technologies conference next week in University Park, PA. We have room for additional participants. If anyone is interested, please email me (marc.smith@telligent.com) or Derek (shakmatt@gmail.com). If there is sufficient interest by those in the DC or Bay Area we could potentially arrange for a similar workshop closer to home. We are particularly interested in reaching instructors who may be teaching social network analysis or courses on social media in the Fall of 2009 and have a tutorial we have developed to aid in that process. The tutorial is being updated, but here is the old version (which still is useful!).  We will distribute the updated version at the conference and thereafter here on the blog and the NodeXL codeplex site.

Title: NodeXL: Social Network Analysis and Visualization tools for Social Media
Date/Time: Wednesday, June 24, 8:30am through early afternoon
Place: Penn State University, University Park, PA

(http://cct2009.ist.psu.edu/index.cfm)

This session will provide a walk through the basic operation of NodeXL. Attendees are encouraged to bring an edge list of interest. Sample data sets will be provided. To download the NodeXL add-in and slides, go to:
http://www.codeplex.com/NodeXL

Some highlights:
An Examination of Language Use in Online Dating Profiles
Meenakshi Nagarajan, Marti Hearst

Event Detection and Tracking in Social Streams
Hassan Sayyadi, Matthew Hurst, Alexey Maykov

Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks
Mathieu Bastian, Sebastian Heymann, Mathieu Jacomy

Information Diffusion in Computer Science Citation Networks
Xiaolin Shi, Belle Tseng, Lada Adamic

Considering the Sources: Comparing Linking Patterns in Usenet and Blogs
Mary McGlohon, Matthew Hurst

[Vladimir Barash is liveblogging the ICWSM conference]

10.30am A categorical model for discovering latent structure in social annotations (Said Kashoob)
Given a collection of web objects, users and tags, can we model the underlying tag generation process?

-Discover implict communities of interest?

-Categories of related tags?

-For given category, id most relevant objs for category

-compare categories

Initial thoughts: content-based topic modeling (Latent Dirichlet Allocation, LSA). Recent work applying LDA models to tags (Wu 2006, Zhou 2008)

Modeling social annotations: the process that generates content is fundamentally different from the annotation process (many authors per “document” = tag collection, not aware of each other)

Community based categorical annotation model (CCA). Communities are groups forming around interests, etc. Each community has a number of categories as its world-view. For each object, a community draws tags from the appropriate underlying categories

Object annotations are generated by communities. Each community selects tags from its category set.

-use Gibbs sampling to recover a joint distribution of tags, categories and communities

-can do inference to find most likely tags per category, per community

Content-based topics vs. tag-based categories

Exploring content vs. annotation: for pairs of objects that are similar in category space, how topically similar are they? Reslt: objects with similar content do not necessarily have similar tags and vice versa

Rubix cube example: objects similar both in category and topic are solutions to the puzzle, objects that are only similar in category are puzzles / games, objects that are only similar in topic are math pages

11am Content-based summarization and categorization in the blogosphere (Ahmed Hassan)

How can we decide which blogs are more important / influential? Given a set of blogs related to a particular topic, find a subset of blog feeds to read that have continued interest in the topic.

Can we use hyperlink popularity based algorithms for speeches and blogs? Yes, but they might not work very well

Use textual similarity to link posts instead of hyperlinks: maybe blog A affects blog B? Given a set of blogs, build a graph where nodes represent posts/feeds and edges link posts/feed with simliar text

Use a pagerank-like measure to calculate importance score of a blog in the similarity network

How can we select nodes that are important but diverse? Add discounting factor based on similarity of node to neighbors

dataset: TREC blog datase

Evaluation: use linear threshold diffusion model! How many blogs covered (activated) by first k blogs in rank. Also split data by time to see how valid is rank(t) for predicting coverage at t+1. Approach also does a little better at precision-at-k on the TREC blog dataset

11.30am Supervised ranking of syntactic configurations for finding targets of semantic expressions (Jason Kessler)

Trying to find targets of sentiment phrases (“while the dealership was friendly, the *car* was a disappointment”)

Sentiment expressions only link to physical targets (“Bill likes to drive the car”)

Two-domain corpus: cars and camera

Baselines – proximity, one-hop with dependency parser

Approach – learn to target from a corpus. Supervised ranking instead of classification. Uses linear-kernel RankSVM, off-the-shelf approach

Results – supervised ranking does better than proximity, one-hop, approaches interannotator agreement

Future work: inter-sentential target

3pm Stochastic models of user-contributory web sites (Tad Hogg)

Focus: describe aggregate group behavior

-determines structure and usefulness of user-participatory sites

Models enable:

-predicting user behaviors

-incentivizing user participation

Stochastic modeling summary:

-Start with individual user behavior, specify states and transitions between states

-Determine collective behavior (details in paper)

Illustration: Stochastic Model of Digg

-Phenomenology: users submit and vote on news stories, Digg promotes popular stories to front page, allows social networking (friends, fans)

Model of Digg voting behavior: visibility and interestingness -> votes. Extension to prior model (Lerman ’07).

- “law of surfing” for viewing web pages (Huberman et al. 98)

- incremental average growth in number of voters’ fans

- construct equation for dynamics of vote volume for a story from state diagram that formalizes visibility and interestingness. Params for vis and interest estimated from story sample. Estimate viewers watching stories from models and data.

Data: front page and upcoming stories since May 06

Modeling story visibility: story location, navigating web sites, number of fans. Each voter enables fans to see story via friends interface.

Modeling story interestingness: topic, novelty, popularity. Can estimate from web-based experiments, e.g. Salganik et al. 06, but can estimate from models and data.

Results: model captures qualitative features – slow growth initially, influence of fans on promotion, rapid growth if story promoted (much more visible to users)

Results: the number of fans have not yet seen the story drops, number of votes on story grows significantly after story gets promoted. “Promotion line” in number of fans / interestingness splits stories into will be / won’t be promoted with 95% accuracy

Predictions from early behavior: can predict #votes from first 4 votes (similar to results for YouTube), but “law of surfing” and incremental growth important parts of model

Conclusions: stochastic process approach connects user and system behaviors, applicable to social media in general when users have limited information and actions, limited use of personalized history.

3.30pm Personal information management vs resource sharing: towards a model of information behavior in social tagging systems (Markus Heckner)

Why do people tag?

Tagging: a fourth layer of indexing? (On top of author keywords, intellectual indexing by information professionals, and auto-tagging)

media type influences tagging: differences in number, language, function of tags btw Connotea, Flickr, YouTube, Delicious

Method: Scientific crowdsourcing using Mechanical Turk

Assumption: Different motivations for taggs

-Organization of one’s own digital content, i.e. personal informational management (Delicious, Connotea), vs. information sharing (Flickr, YouTube)

Questionnaire Design: Question Types

-online questionnaire posted as “human intelligence task.” asks general information, general motivation, tagging motivation and understanding, social bookmarking and search, recent usage.

Data: ~150 subjects, users of Flickr, YouTube, Delicious, Connotea

Results:

Motivation: YouTube is significantly weaker-motivated for PIM, Delicious much weaker for sharing, Flickr and Connotea about even

Perception of tagging: Connotea users perceive tagging as most easy, follow by YouTube, Delicious, Flickr (not significant). Connotea user agree very strongly that tagging is a useful feature

Towards a model of tagging behavior: Shneiderman’s approach towards social software (social spheres), etc.

4pm Motivational, structural and tenure factors that impact online community photo sharing (Oded Nov)

Why do people in online communities share? Can we quantify the drivers for sharing (or not sharing) and their effect on actual behavior?

Three types of questions as framework:

Why – drivers of sharing (Motivation, structural properties, personality, privacy concerns)

What – type of information shared (code, content/facts, meta-info (tags), photos)

Where – context of sharing (OSS, Wikipedia, Flickr)

Creation vs. sharing: the act of sharing is separate from the act of creation

People take photos regardless of the sharing act (really?), the “second act” of sharing photos is optional, separate from the “first act” of photo sharing

Identifying the factors in sharing: motivational (extrinsic vs. intrinsic), structural factors (position of user in community network), tenure in community

Motivations: enjoyment (self/intrinsic), commitment to the community (others/intrinsic), self-development (self/extrinsic), reputation (others/extrinsic)

Response variable: artifact sharing per tenure year, IV: motivational vars + structural (number of contacts) + tenure (years since started sharing)

Method: combine user-reported (survey) data and system data: what people say + what people do. N=278, used only “pro” users (>200 photos) with at least 3 months’ tenure on Flickr.

Results: significant positive effect of commitment, negative of self-development, positive of number of contacts, negative of tenure, rest not significant.

Why is enjoyment not correlated with sharing? Users may be motivated more by “fun” of creation rather than content sharing.

Why is correlation between self-development and photo sharing nefative? A tradeoff between contribution quality and quantity? Greater self-development motivation -> focus on the quality of artifacts shared, at the expense of quantity

Summary:

quality / quantity tradeoff, fun is not an issue?, diminishing sharing

4.30pm Modeling Blog Dynamics (Michaela Goetz)

Blogosphere is a system of interactions: Entities: Bloggers, Posts, Topics

Model: simple set of rules (followed by blogger) that creates these interactions

Evaluation: creating a synthetic blogosphere, comparing it to real blogosphere

Motivation: forecasting, advertising

How is this different from modeling social network? 2 networks combined: Blog vs. Post network, complex temporal dynamics

goal: model micro-level interactions to observe macro-level interactions in blogosphere

Properties of the blogosphere:

-Topological – blog, post = follow power law distribution

-Temporal – user posting activity, popularity over time (link creation)

Burstiness (Slope = 1 of aggregation level vs. entropy) & Self-similarity (Linearity of aggregation level vs. entropy)

Inter-posting time follows a power law

Time t vs. number of in-links t days after publishing follows a power law

Desired model: simple (no parameters), intuitive (local rules), creates realistic topology and dynamics

First-try solution:

-inter posting times sampled from exponential distribution, links created using pref attachment – leads to exponential inter-posting distribution, poisson degree distribution (really?), etc.

Second-try solution (Zero-Cost):

In every round, for every blog, user u takes a random walk step, if he reaches 0, he decides to post P

when he posts, he can make a link or not, if he makes a link, he can choose a neighbor based on frequency of links or non-neighbor, then chooses some post of neighbor and links to random posts upward in the cascade

This model accurately reproduces both the topological and temporal patterns (at a qualitative level – same distributions, different though relatively close exponents. Biggest difference: 1.5(sim) vs. 0.7(real) in inter-posting time exponent)

[Vladimir Barash is liveblogging the ICWSM conference]
9-10AM: A Tempest: Or, on the Flood of Interest in Sentiment Analysis, Opinion Mining, and the Computational Treatment of Subjective Language (Lillian Lee)

-Sentiment analysis using discussion structure: clasify speeches in US congressional floor debates as supporting or opposing proposed legislation -Individual doc classifier -agreement (degree) classifier for pairs of speeches

-Agreement info allows COLLECTIVE CLASSIFICATION – “agreeing speeches should get the same label”

-ECON: debate about effect of sentiment on sales
-comScore (users willing to pay 20-99% more for 5 star item vs. 4 star item)
-Jury is still out

-SOC: What opinions are influential? (Niculescu-Danescu Muzyl et al.)
-Prior work has focused on features of text and has not been in context of sociological aspects of reviews
-look at helpfulness scores

-What about review’s star rating in relationship to others?

-theories from soc / social psych:
-conformity
-brilliant but cruel

-Are the social effects just textual correlates?

-would like to control for actual quality of review text. Manual annotation? Tedious, subjective. Automatic clasification? Need extremely high accuracy guarantees.

-use plagiarism (1% of all reviews) to control for text quality! findings hold for plagiarized pairs

Summarizing:

-Sentiment analysis has many important applications – to researchers, to citizens, to governments

-encompasses many interesting research questions

-extends to many areas

Stand-out question: matt hurst and the user as generative model for opinions

10.30 AM: Gesundheit! Modeling Contagion through Facebook News Feed
(Eric Sun, Itamar Rosenn, Cameron Marlow, Thomas Lento)

Motivation: how do ideas diffuse through a large social network?

-Theory of the Influentials (Gladwell)

-Accidental Influencers(Watts): anyone can be an “influencer.” Ideas don’t spread via influentials, ideas spread like viruses (susceptible or not), goal to find a large number of susceptible people

Q: are contagions triggered by small # of sources? What are some characteristics of diffusion chains on Facebook? Can we use demographic or behavioral characteristics to predict size of diffusion chains a particular user will create?

Spreading ideas on Facebook – through News Feed

-Page Fanning = becoming fan of people, orgs, etc.

-Mechanics: Alice fans a page, Bob sees Alice’s action on his News feed, Bob fans page as well (link: Alice -> Bob)

-Strong ties: links depend both on friendship and on actions (following)

-Median page has most of its fans in one (weakly) connected cluster

-Large clusters Not Started by “one guy” – roughly 15% of fans in the biggest cluster of each Page are start points

-Variability in this percentage becomes very small as #fans increases

-Clusters are formed when many short diffusion chains merge

-Data: actor to follower connections for ~300,000 FB paes

-Main dataset: page-level data

-Second dataset: select 10 random, representative pages (at least 40 days old had at least 5k fans) and analyze users that start chains

-Prediction Model: Response = max_chain_length, Predictors: gender, log age, log FB age, etc. Method: 0-inflated neg binomial regression

-results: Demographic characteristics not important, number of Facebook friends not important, feed exposure is the strongest predictor with coefficient ~ 1 (so a 1% increase in the number of people who see ego’s fanning ~ 1% increase in chain length)

-Comment: this is global focus, not local focus. What about the interpersonal dimension, i.e. the likelihood that Alice infects Bob?

-Comment: support for Duncan Watts’ idea

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

11am Seeking and Offering Expertise across Categories: A Sustainable Mechanism Works for Baidu Knows
(Jiang Yang, Xiao Wei)

Baidu Knows: Chinese QnA site

-Growing extremely fast: more than 80 million questions asked in 4 years.

-Huge user population (2.6 mln users). Knowledge repository as online source

-Points! Points! Points! (flexible amount of extra points set for best answerer, more points buy more answers, etc.)

-Building sense of community: honor title system (including traditional Chinese titles!), online chats, etc.

-Data: Full history of QnA 12/07-05/08. 9.3 mln questions asked, 5.2 mln (56%) resolve, 2.6 mln users participated

-3.3 answers for each question (vs. 7.3 for Yahoo! Answers, note that Yahoo! Answers encourages answering more than asking)

-Significant categorical difference in awarded points: low(brand, science, food) vs. high (medicine, computer, music)

-Price of answering positively correlated to popularity of category

-Order difference: according to human rating of sample questions, order of answers doesn’t matter, but first answer has highest chance to be best answer, more points awarded for later best answers

-Reinforcement cycle: encourage continuing

-Answerer performance positively correlated with activity level. More active answerers choose less expensive questions, questions with fewer answers. More active answerers working harder (longer answers), and more focused (on particular category)

Reinforcement cycle: choose less competitive q’s -> better performance -> more efforts -> more focused -> choose less competitive q’s

-Askers: learn how to better ask: more active askers, ask cheaper questions, experienced askers get more answers with per point they ask (slight trend).

-Asker/Answerer hybrids (22% of pop): core of contribution! Much more active (almost 1/2 total questions), more generous (offer higher award: 12.3 per question versus 11.6 on average in general, share same pattern as normal asker but paying higher each time), not necessarily experts, incentivized

Seeking and offering across categories: some categories are pretty self-contained, others are more porous. Lots of cross-category contribution

-A sustainable mechanism is working on Baidu Knows (that’s a good discussion question!)

11.30 AM: Community Structure and Information Flow in Usenet: Improving Analysis with a Thread Ownership Model (Mary McGlohon, Matthew Hurst)

-Compare communities of online social nets may lend insight into how groups form and thrive

-How does info diffuse between communities?

Data: Usenet, 200 politically-oriented newsgroups (bulletin boards) – polit in name, Jan 04 – june 08. several countries, 19.6 mln unique articles, 6.2 mln cross-posted

Cross-posting: large % of articles are cross-posted to multiple groups. Somebody reading one group may “reply-to-all” such that all groups see it.

Structural analysis: how do edges btw authors form? How does the reciprocity of groups compare? How can we measure similarity btw groups?

-Make network of authors for each group, if a_1 has replied to a_2 at any point, there is an edge from a_1 to a_2. Find power law relationship btw #of nodes and #edges over time (similar to Leskovec et al. densification). Exception: tw.bbs

-Reciprocity: which groups have highest reciprocity? Top 10 were European newsgroups, e.g. hun.politika (up to .58). Lowest reciprocity: tw.bbs

-Similarity: use Jaccard coefficient for cross-posts = #shared articles btw 2 groups / Total # articles in groups, can do same with shared authors

Highest similarity ~.54 (bc.politics and on.politics).

Draw thresholded similarity network, find clusters: parties, US regional, countries, alt.politics subgroups

-Image: english-speaking countries cluster. Can.politics (Canada) highly central!

Ownership Model: we would like to find out in which group the activity is truly occurring. How can we trace this? ANswer: assign “ownership” based on authors of posts. First, assign authors to groups based on devotion, where devotion(a,g): what % of an author a’s posts are exclusively posted to a given group g

-For all groups that author posts particular post p to, the post belongs to the group with the highest (normalized) ownership between it and the author

-Example: “Kiss the National Parks Good-Bye” initially corss-posted to several groups, 38 groups in total, ownership concentrated in seattle.politics and or.politics

Information flow between groups: How often does an author in group 1 respond to a post in group 2? Define influence g_a, g_b as the product of the groups’ devotion scores for a particular author

Ownership-based similarity. Q: How can ownership help us more precisely state when 2 groups are similar? Use devotion instead of Jaccard to calc similarity between groups

-Potential applications: link prediction, IR and relevance, ownership for email lists. Future work: use ownership to predict whether group will continue or die off

1.30pm Does Showing off Help to Make Friends? (Christophe Aguiton)

Self exposition and social capital:

-What do we let others see about ourselves on social networking sites?

-How do we relate to others depending on what they show?

Game sociological survey: link

part 1: if you were on these pics, which would you publish on a website?

part 2: questionnaire

part 3: down-to-one-friend (start with x friends, see pics only, eliminate one; add favorites info, elminate one; etc. down to one friend)

first launch: FB, diffuses to blogs, Flickr, news, 15,000 respondents by end of experiment.

-Sample is not representative of French SNS users. Lots of heavy internet users. 71.1% male, average age 28 years old, 47% high school diploma, 33% students.

First Results:

-moderate / controlled level of exposure (exposure score: ~2.4 on 1-4 scale)

-extraversion index, socializing index

Method: PCA to cluster photos in the experimental dataset. Four components: traditional self-exhibition (ordinary life situation), bodily immodesty (nudity / sexual situations), showing off (protests, etc.), provocative (negative activity).

-Cluster analysis with scores of PCA, five clusters: Modest (people don’t like to show themselves, 19%, more women, older, high level of ed, high status position, few friends) + four from above.

-Main question: find no correlation between sns use and level of self-exposition

-2nd question: how do people make friends?

- popular friendship targets (from 3rd part of game) are young, cool, active, unpopular are  older, more reserved

- subject choice largely guided by homophily, a tendency to bond with similar others. Results: people preferentially choose as friends of same age and diploma level. Heterophily by gender: both men and women choose women over men.

- What aspects of persona do different kinds of people look at? Modest people most closely look at “about me,” traditional exhibitionists most closely look at “wall,” provocative most closely look at “sexual preferences”

Main results of survey:

-Self-exposition on web is a social construction, requires reflexive and strategic control of one’s image, self-exhibition strategies differ according to sociological factors, social networks encourage homophily but also allow users to have more heterogeneous social capital

2pm. What are they blogging about? Personality, topic and motivation in blogs (Alastair J. Gill et al.)

How does personality influence blogger motivation?

Personality – describes fundamental core of individuals

-Behavior and preferences

-Useful for categorising users and consumers

-How does this influence bloggers? Blogs – unique freedom of expression for authors

-Already shown to influence langauge in CMC (Gill 2004, Nowson 2006).

-Analysis of Polish blogs w/ suggested psychological profiles)

Motivations: Internal – Documenting life, catharsis (therapy); External using own perspective – Interests, Opinions

Personality: Big Five model of personality (Goldberg ’92, Costa and McCrae ’92).

Data and Method: Internet meme personality test: 5 Y/N questions each for the Big Five personality types -> high-mid-low scores; 3 months of blogs extracted from Nielsen BuzzMetrics data. Basic statistics, text analysis.

results:

Neuroticism: use of blogs for self-therapy/catharsis – focusing on self and venting purely negative feelings

Extraversion: life narrative (documentation) in conversation with reader; expressing highs and lows, but not mundane. Use of 2nd person pronouns

Openness: review or evaluation of leisure (music, TV) from personal perspective, but no increase in thinking or senses

Conscientiousness: faithfully document life going on; references to others; positive emotion. Job focus, little temporal narrative.

Agreeableness: positive self-talk focus

Discussion: Blogs unsurprising mainly focus on self. Face apparently genuine in blogs. Agreeable bloggers provide a barometer of what is / isn’t acceptable in blogs

2.30pm A social identity approach to identify familiar strangers in a social network (Nitin Agrawal)

Who are familiar strangers?

Observe repeatedly, but do not know each other: Real world – people you see daily on a train (going to same workplace); Blogosphere – people who have similar blogging behavior / interests but not in each other’s social networks

Together, familiar strangers form a critical mass: understanding of one blogger gives a sensible and representative glimpse to others -> better customization, personalization and recommendation.

Familiar strangers in social media: an example, u is a blogger with interests A_u, friends v_1… v_k with interests A_v_1… A_v_k. Find non-adjacent u’ with similar interests (intersection of A_u, A_u’ is non-empty).

-Egocentric network view (exposure to network limited to neighbors).

-Social identity approach: cluster contacts into groups, propagate search through relevant clusters of contacts (prunes search space). For this to work, network needs to be a small world (WS 98)

-Method: represent contact by tag vector, content vector, use cosine similarity, then k-means clustering

-Ground truth: Global network view. Data: Blogcatalog (~24k nodes), DBLP (~35k nodes). Also compare to exhaustive and random search strategies.

Results: 79.3%+-3 for BlogCatalog, 91.3%+-2.1 for DBLP, greatly reduced search space.

3pm You are where you edit: Locating Wikipedia Contributors through Edit histories (Michael Lieberman, Jimmy Lin)

Minig Wikipedia: id Wikipedia contributors who edit geopages in a constrained space, have specific “pet” geopages (pages for geographical locations identified with geotags)

Features with extent: all geopages tagged with single lat/lon, even though they can be countries, cities, rivers, etc.

Wikiepdia edit histories: ignored anon edits, minor edits, focused on edits to geopages

Edit area = convex hull of geotags smaller than 1 degree sq. Account for outliers with simple approximator that cuts off at F closest-together geotags

Results: Pet Geopages. Over 50% of contributors with 5-20 edits, and 25% of contributors with over 20 edits, have 80% of edits to 1 or 2 geopages

Reasons for Tight Edit areas: randomly selected 100 contributors with at least 10 edits to geopages and small edit areas. Concurrently examined contributors’ user pages and the set of edited geopages to determine an interest. Contributors with small edit areas tend to be born in or are living in close-to-edit areas.

Future work: using alterante measures to determine geopage edit significance

4pm CourseRank: a closed-community social system through the magnifying glass(Georgia Koutrika)

CourseRank: community for Stanford students to evaluate courses, browse courses, plan academic program, interact with each other, ask / answer questions. 1.5 years, 11k students, 19k courses, 3k reviews

Special features: well-defined closed community, multiple constituencies (staff, students), special-purpose tools, hybrid data

A new class of social sites defined by these characteristics. E.g. university social site, scientific social site, A-space (intelligence)

Popularity: >85% of Stanford students are CourseRank users

Usage: follows academic cycle

Participation inequality: 20% created by intermittent, 80% by active; 31% of lurkers, 38% intermittent, 30% (!) active

Smaller communities (departments) breed more active students

Truths and Lies: grade distribution follows official. Good incentives make better users (is this really evidence?). But there is bias: correlation between grade given to student and rating given by student

Lessons Learned:

-added-value services a big thing

-high-quality data

-community feeling is strong = students coming together with common need

-meaningful incentives

4.30pm Using transactional information to predict link strength in online social networks (Indika Kahanda)

OSNs (Online Social Networks) are larger and more heterogeneous than manually-collected social networks

High median degree implies presence of many weak links

Conjecture: Link strength can be predicted from transactional information

Data: Purdue FB. Transactional info: Wall comm, photo postings, group memberships. Networks over Wall, Pictures look more like offline-collected networks (e.g. AdHealth data)

Automatically identifying top friends: link strength prediction task (binary)

Related to, but different from, link prediction (which focuses on predicting future links between u,v in a unimodal network). Previous approaches use attribute similarity features or topological features of network. Adamic and Adar (’03) used ancillary networks but focused on similarity vs. transaction

Feature types: Attribute-based (attribute similarity btw two nodes), Topological features (assess connectivity of users in friendship network), transactional features (number of bi-directional wall/photo/group posts), network-transactional features (assess connectivity of users in transaction networks)

Experiment 1: Feature rankings. Compare relative importance of each of 50 features, using info gain and chi-square statistic. 12 of top 15 are network-transactional features, 3 are transactional, 12 use wall info, 3 use picture info.

Experiment 2: Feature type comparison. Ablation study. Network-transactional features achieve best performance

Experiment 3: Link type comparison. Ablation study using data from each link type separately (all features). Wall information results in best performance. Picture info does not improve performance because of sparsity

Experiment 4: overall classification results. Bagged decision trees perform best.

Results indicate that transactional events useful for presenting link strength, but should be used in context of larger network for best performance

5pm RevRank: a fully unsupervised algorithm for selecting the most helpful book reviews (Oren Tsur)

Most reviews are: repetitive, limited contribution, poorly written, unnoticed

User voting bias: Liu et al. – imbalance vote bias, early bird bias, winner circle bias. Many very helpful reviews go unnoticed.

Interesting features of reviews:

-there are a lot of them

-contributors put big cognitive effort to generate them

-Good faith. Reviewers expect no direct reward.

Main idea: automatic detection of dominant concepts. Dominant concepts are either really frequent or infrequent but very informative. Term dominance defined as ratio of term frequency in review set to term frequency in balanced review set (British National Corpus)

RevRank algorithm: find most dominant concept, vectorize, rank reviews according from centroid identified by the core vector

Experimental setup: 12k reviews for Da Vinci Doe, World is Flat, Harry Potter, Ender’s Game. Compared to random, user votes. Gold standard – human labels.

Results: in 85% of test batches, RevRank pick was ranked “the most helpful.” In some cases, random algorithm outperformed user votes!

Summary: RevRank is fully unsupervised, better than user votes, finds “hidden” reviews and interesting insights

End of Day 1

On Tuesday night Marc Smith and I will be presenting the poster for our paper, “Distinguishing Knowledge vs Social Capital in Social Media with Roles and Context” at the International Conference for Weblogs and Social Media. You can find the poster, co-authored with Marc Smith (Telligent Systems), Lise Getoor (University of Maryland) and Howard T. Welser (Ohio University), here. The full text of the paper has more information, but the poster is a good summary of the key concepts in the paper:

• What roles do people play in social media?
• What contexts shape user behavior in social media?
• How can we leverage roles and context together to predict future user behavior (in terms of contribution type) from past user behavior?

The specific research question being addressed is: can we predict whether a particular contribution to Live Q&A (a Microsoft-sponsored community question answering site) will be contain factual information, or discussion / chat. It is possible to do the prediction based on the text of the contribution, but such an approach focuses entirely on the content, and not on the actor – the user who is making the contribution. If we leverage actor-centric information (what role does he/she play in the community: an “answer person” or a “discussion person”? is he making the contribution in a discussion-oriented context, such as implied by tagging the contribution as “fun,” or a fact-oriented context, such as implied by tagging the contribution as “math”?), we find we can build a decent predictor at very low cost with very few variables. If we use just role information or just context information, we do reasonably well… but if we use both, we do *much* better. While the question we’re answering here is quite specific, the advantage of our approach is that it can be applied to almost any social media context – any place online where users can both contribute content and interact with others. We could just as easily create a predictor for contributions to Yahoo! Answers, or even to Wikipedia (if we had the relevant data). This is definitely food for thought / opportunity for future work

I will lead a workshop with Martha Russell on social network analysis of social media as part of the Stanford Media X Summer Institute on New Metrics for New Media: Analytics for Social Media and Virtual Worlds this Summer.  I am looking forward to working with the folks at Media X which hosts a range of cutting edge events devoted to exploring the newest trends in technology and society.