I will speak this March 4th at the 2012 Predictive Analytics World in San Francisco about ” Crowd Photography for Social Media“.

http://www.predictiveanalyticsworld.com/sanfrancisco/2012/speakers.php
http://www.predictiveanalyticsworld.com/sanfrancisco/2012/agenda.php#

Monday @ 5:25-5:45pm

Track 1:
Social Data Case Study:
Social Media Research Foundation
Crowd Photography for Social Media

Crowds of people gather in social media around many products, services, businesses, and events but they can be difficult to see and understand. With new free and open tools, it is now possible to map and measure social media spaces, capturing the sub-groups and key people within and between them. Learn how to capture social media data and quickly generate a visual map of the crowd. With maps in hand, we will discuss ways they guide a journey to the key influencers and concepts in the crowd.

Speaker: Marc Smith, Director, Social Media Research Foundation

Mapping social media networks (with no coding) using NodeXL

Time: 16:50 on 01 Mar 2012.

Session type: 40 minute presentation

Topics: Visualization & Interface

Description: Maps of the complex connections that form when people link, like, reply, rate, review, favorite, friend, follow, edit, and mention one another can reveal important trends. It is possible to create network maps with free and open tools that identify key people and sub-groups in any social media population with just a few key clicks. Can you make a pie chart? You can now make a network chart.

Abstract: Networks are a data structure common found across all social media services that allow populations to author collections of connections. The Social Media Research Foundation’s (http://www.smrfoundation.org) free and open NodeXL project (http://nodexl.codeplex.com) makes analysis of social media networks accessible to most users of the Excel spreadsheet application. With NodeXL, Networks become as easy to create as pie charts. Applying the tool to a range of social media networks has already revealed the variations present in online social spaces. A review of the tool and images of Twitter, flickr, YouTube, and email networks will be presented.

We now live in a sea of tweets, posts, blogs, and updates coming from a significant fraction of the people in the connected world. Our personal and professional relationships are now made up as much of texts, emails, phone calls, photos, videos, documents, slides, and game play as by face-to-face interactions. Social media can be a bewildering stream of comments, a daunting fire hose of content. With better tools and a few key concepts from the social sciences, the social media swarm of favorites, comments, tags, likes, ratings, and links can be brought into clearer focus to reveal key people, topics and sub-communities. As more social interactions move through machine-readable data sets new insights and illustrations of human relationships and organizations become possible. But new forms of data require new tools to collect, analyze, and communicate insights.

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:

On November 9th and 10th, 2011 the LocalSocialSummit11 will be held in London.

On Thursday morning, November 10th, Doctor Bernie Hogan from the Oxford Internet Institute and member of the Social Media Research Foundation will speak on the topic:

Insights: Social Network Analysis On Facebook Data, with a local twist

Thursday at 3:45 I will speak at the event on:

Charting Collections Of Connections In Social Media

Following the conference from 5 to 6pm will be a reception for the Social Media Research Foundation.

Please join us for refreshments and a discussion of the ways social media analysis tools can guide your engagement with stakeholders around the world.

The event is held at wallacespace:

22 Duke’s Road, London, WC1H 9PN
t +44(0)20 7395 1265
f +44 (0)20 7836 9591
e ask@wallacespace.com

22 Duke’s Road is only minutes walk away from Euston, St Pancras International, King’s Cross and Russell Square Tube.

Registration form for attending the event is below….

I will speak at the International Symposium on Convergence Technology (ConTech 2011) – Smart & Humane World – on November 3rd in Seoul, South Korea.

Date: 2011 November 3 (Thurs)
Place: COEX Grand Ballroom, Seoul, Korea
Organized by Advanced Institutes of Convergence Technologies (AICT), Seoul National University (SNU)
In Cooperation with Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, National Research Foundation of Korea, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology (GSCST)
Symposium Chair : Choi, Yanghee (President, AICT)

Program
09:00~09:30 Registration
09:30~10:00 Opening Ceremony
Plenary Session : Smart & Humane World through Convergence
10:00~10:40 Speaker (TBD)
10:50~11:30 Speaker (TBD)
11:30~13:00 Lunch
Session 1 : Bio Convergence (Chair : Prof. Kim, Sunghoon)
Session 2 : IT Convergence (Chair : Dr. Lee, Manjai)
Session 3 : Appropriate Technology (Chair : Prof. Kang, Namjun)
13:00~15:00 Scott A. Strobel (Professor, Yale University)
Speaker Kevin Kim (Professor, University of Illinois)
Speaker Masaru Kitsuregawa (Professor, Tokyo University)
Speaker Haesun Park (Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology)
Speaker Marc Smith (Connected Action)
Speaker Sang-goo Lee (Professor, Seoul National University)
Speaker Haklae Kim (Samsung)
Speaker Raghu Ramakrishnan (Yahoo)

My slides: 20111103 con tech2011-marc smith

I will also visit Professor Han Woo Park at YeungNam University (Wikipedia) in Daegu, South Korea to meet with his students in the Webometrics Institute program.

This will be my second trip to Korea, I was there last year for a related event.  Pictures after the jump:

I presented on social media network analysis on October 20, 2011 in New York City at Predictive Analytics World.

A map of the connections among the people tweeting about the #Pawcon hashtag is below.

Network Maps for End Users: Collect, Analyze, Visualize and Communicate Network Insights with Zero Coding

Abstract: Networks are everywhere except the end user desktop.  NodeXL, the free and open network overview, discovery and exploration add-in for the popular and familiar Excel (2007/2010) spreadsheet allows users who are comfortable making pie charts to now make useful network visualizations.  Developed and released by the Social Media Research Foundation, NodeXL uses Excel as a framework, providing a GUI network browser (a “web browser”?) that novices can use quickly and experts can use to generate sophisticated results.  Data importers provide access to a range of social media network data sources like Twitter, flickr, YouTube, Facebook, email, the WWW, and more through standard file formats (CSV, GraphML, Matrix).  Simple to use tools can automatically analyze, visualize and highlight insights in complex network graphs.  Using NodeXL, researchers have been collecting a wide range of network data sets from various social media services.  These images reveal a range of common social formations in social media and point to people who occupy strategic locations in these graphs.

This is a map of the connections among the people who tweeted the term “PAWCON” on the first day of the event:

These are the connections among the Twitter users who recently tweeted the word #pawcon when queried on October 19, 2011, scaled by numbers of followers (with outliers thresholded). Connections created when users reply, mention or follow one another.

A larger version of the image is here: www.flickr.com/photos/marc_smith/6261006732/sizes/l/in/ph…

Top most between users:
@tapan_patel
@pawcon
@sasanalytics
@deloitteba
@kristinevick
@jamet123
@zementis
@kdnuggets
@tibcospotfire
@saspublishing

Graph Metric: Value
Graph Type: Directed
Vertices: 41
Unique Edges: 233
Edges With Duplicates: 120
Total Edges: 353
Self-Loops: 44
Connected Components: 2
Single-Vertex Connected Components: 1
Maximum Vertices in a Connected Component: 40
Maximum Edges in a Connected Component: 352
Maximum Geodesic Distance (Diameter): 4
Average Geodesic Distance: 1.87133
Graph Density: 0.15304878
NodeXL Version: 1.0.1.179

Here is an example map of the connections among the people who tweeted the term “pawcon” in Twitter on September 14th, a week prior to the event.

Manu Sharma, Principle Research Scientist at LinkedIn gave a great presentation on the patterns found in their data.  Big data, for example, showed that most of the people who previously worked at recently failed banks and financial institutions have updated their profiles to show that they mostly have new jobs at some of the remaining companies in the industry.

The event was held at the New York Hilton: Maps & Directions

I will speak at Purdue University on September 22 and 23, 2011 about mapping social media networks.

My host is Sorin Matei, professor of Communications, who has been researching the social structure of social media networks.

I will also speak at Professor Matei’s class: COM 63200 On-line Interaction and Facilitation

Here is an example map of the connections among the people who tweeted the word “Purdue” on September 16th, 2011:

Connections among the Twitter users who recently tweeted the word Purdue when queried on September 16, 2011, scaled by numbers of tweets (with outliers thresholded). Connections created when users reply, mention or follow one another.

See: www.purdue.edu/

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

(Edges connecting users are bundled and curved with recent features added to NodeXL v.177.)

A larger version of the image is here: www.flickr.com/photos/marc_smith/6155750905/sizes/o/in/ph…

Betweenness Centrality is defined here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrality#Betweenness_centrality

Clauset-Newman-Moore algorithm is defined here: pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v70/i6/e066111

Top most between users:
@lifeatpurdue
@jajuanjohnson
@stfu_gabby
@purdueexponent
@charliienosheen
@mbrister2
@boilerfootball
@purduesports
@hipandresanbo
@cheesebrrrrr

Graph Metric: Value
Graph Type: Directed
Vertices: 1000
Unique Edges: 4045
Edges With Duplicates: 706
Total Edges: 4751
Self-Loops: 977
Connected Components: 429
Single-Vertex Connected Components: 395
Maximum Vertices in a Connected Component: 528
Maximum Edges in a Connected Component: 4134
Maximum Geodesic Distance (Diameter): 12
Average Geodesic Distance: 3.517707
Graph Density: 0.003507508
NodeXL Version: 1.0.1.177

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

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.

 

Please vote on our SxSW 2012 panel:

Thanks for your vote for our SxSW panel!

I will be speaking at the Oxford Internet Institute on July 13 and 14, 2011 as part of the Summer Doctoral Program.

I will speak about the use of social network analysis and visualization techniques to analyze and understand social media.

The Summer Doctoral Program is designed to

…bring together advanced doctoral students engaged in dissertation research relating to the Internet and other ICTs. By sharing their work and learning from leading academics in the field, students can enhance the quality and significance of their thesis research and create a peer network of excellent young researchers.

The 2011 Summer Doctoral Programme will draw substantially upon the OII’s research strengths and will involve participation from many of our faculty, together with colleagues from other partner institutions. It will emphasise methodological innovation and good practice in research design, and will expose students to the benefits of discussing their research in a multi-disciplinary teaching environment.”

I will be speaking at the Jacob T. Schwartz International School for Scientific Research week long Lipari School on Computational Social Science , July 17 – July 23, 2011, Lipari Island, Italy.

This year’s program is dedicated to Computational Social Science: Text and Decisions

Speakers:

• Claudio Cioffi-Revilla: Director of the Center for Social Complexity, Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study, George Mason University, Washington DC.
• Huan Liu: Community Detection and Mining in Social Media [abstract]
  School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering, Arizona State University
• Roel Popping: Computer-assisted text analysis, and the relevance of decision making and text mining [abstract]
  Department of Sociology, University of Groningen

Tutorials

• Marc A. Smith: Charting Collections of Connections in Social Media: Maps and Measures with NodeXL [abstract]
  Chief Social Scientist, Connected Action Consulting Group
• Calogero Zarba: Introduction to matrix algebra [abstract]
  Neodata Intelligence s.r.l., Italy
• Alessandro Pluchino: Netlogo: An agent based simulation programmable environment [abstract], University of Catania, Italy

Here is a NodeXL map of the connections among the people who tweeted the term PDA2011 OR PDA11:

The top most between people in this graph were: @anarchivist, @blefurgy, @naypinya, @rodanda, @jeffubois, @scottros, @evancaroll, @kevinmarks, @vurayav, and @sshreeves.

Here is the video from my talk:

I will be speaking at the next Predictive Analytics World in San Francisco– March 14-15, 2011 about measuring and mapping social media networks with NodeXL:

Social Data: Advanced Methods – Social (Media) Network Analysis with NodeXL
www.predictiveanalyticsworld.com/sanfrancisco/2011/agenda.php#day2-13a

Networks are the common data structure that unify the otherwise diverse range of social media services. In this session learn how to extract social networks from various social media systems and analyze and visualize the structures found in collections of connections. Learn to use the free and open NodeXL add-in for Excel 2007/2010 to analyze email, twitter, facebook, youtube, www, flickr, and wiki networks.

Here is an example – a map of the connections among the people who recently tweeted the string “#pawcon”.

Connections among the Twitter users who recently mentioned PAWCON when queried on March 14, 2011 including tweets from the period 3/10/2011 15:13 to 3/15/2011 3:51, scaled by numbers of followers.
NodeXL is available from www.codeplex.com/nodexl

The top most between contributors were: @tapan_patel, @jamet123, @zementis, @pawcon, @ibmspss, @sasanalytics, @kristinevick, @waynettetubbs, @dataspora, @inside_r

On 11 March 2011, I will be speaking at:

Organizational and Social Media Network Analysis:
Next Practices in Organizational Networks, Analytics and Media

Along with Valdis Krebs, Chief Scientist, http://thenetworkthinkers.com/

Valdis will be speaking about Organizational Network Analysis - Introduction to Enterprise Networks, followed by a InFlow 3.1 Workshop: Social Network Analysis with InFlow 3.1

I will be speaking about Social Media Network Analysis with NodeXL.

Preservation Park
1233 Preservation Park Way
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 874-7580
(click for map)

Tell a Friend
Add to Calendar

Institute for Communication Technology Management

http://www.marshall.usc.edu/faculty/centers/ctm/events

On March 10th, 2011 I will speak on a panel at the USC Marshall School of Business Institute for Communication Technology Management Executive Roundtable.

]]> http://www.connectedaction.net/2011/03/05/10-march-2011-usc-marshall-school-of-business-communication-technology-executive-roundtable/feed/ 0 http://www.connectedaction.net/2010/11/06/november-8-2010-seoul-korea-3rd-international-conference-on-digital-culture/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=november-8-2010-seoul-korea-3rd-international-conference-on-digital-culture http://www.connectedaction.net/2010/11/06/november-8-2010-seoul-korea-3rd-international-conference-on-digital-culture/#comments Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:56:12 +0000 Marc Smith http://www.connectedaction.net/?p=3726

On November 8th, 2010 I spoke in Seoul, Korea at the 3rd International Conference on Digital Culture on the topic of “Smart Society and Civic Culture“.

Several of my colleagues also spoke at the event, including Leslie Tkach-Kawasaki from the University of Tsukuba, Japan, Han Woo Park from YeoungNam University, Korea, George Barnett from the University of California, Davis and Robert Ackland from The Australian National University, AU.

Robert Ackland from The Australian National University, AU

George Barnett from the University of California, Davis

Han Woo Park from YeoungNam University, Korea

Leslie Tkach-Kawasaki from the University of Tsukuba, Japan

Marc Smith, Connected Action Consulting Group

Han Woo Park‘s research team from YeoungNam University, Korea

I spoke at the University of Michigan, School of Information on October 19th, 2010 about “Charting Collections of Connections in Social Media: Mapping and Measuring Social Media Networks to Find Key Positions and Structures“.

I demonstrated the ways social network data sets can be extracted from social media services like Facebook, Twitter, email, YouTube, and flickr.  These network graphs can reveal information about the “shape” of the population in terms of the presence of sub-groups and communities within the larger population.  In addition, each individual participant is located or positioned within the graph, helping to identify the people who are “core” versus those who are peripheral, as well as those who occupy the position of “bridge” between two otherwise separate groups.

Yahoo! Speaker Series

The Yahoo Speaker Series at the School of Information supports distinguished guest lecturers from the fields of information and technology.

2010 Speaker: Marc Smith
VIDEO: Marc Smith

Marc Smith, chief social scientist with the Connected Action Social Group, presented “Charting Collections of Connections in Social Media: Mapping and Measuring Social Media Networks to Find Key Positions and Structures,” on Tuesday, Oct. 19, 2010.

Smith’s talk was sponsored by the Yahoo! Speaker Series, Michigan Interactive & Social Computing, and the School of Information.

In this talk, Smith described how networks are a data structure common across all social media systems — systems defined by enabling populations to author collections of connections. The Social Media Research Foundation‘s NodeXL project makes analysis of social media networks accessible to most users of the Excel spreadsheet application. Using NodeXL, networks become as easy to create and analyze as pie charts. Applying the tool to a range of social media networks has already revealed the variations present in online social spaces. A review of the tool and images of Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, and e-mail networks will be presented, illustrating different patterns created when communities, brands, and controversies are discussed.

I returned to South Africa to attend the 2010 edition of Mobile Web Africa, a conference focused on the remarkable adoption and development of mobile networks and technology in Africa.

The conference took place on 29th & 30th September 2010 in Johannesburg, South Africa.

I presented a workshop on social media network analysis, see: http://www.mobilewebafrica.com/marc-smith-workshop.php

The conference twitter hashtag #MWA2010 received a significant amount of traffic.  I mapped the collection of collections formed when people who tweeted “#MWA2010″ also followed, replied, or mentioned one another.  The following two EventMaps of the #MWA2010 twitter hashtag illustrates the development of the network.

Map of the connections among people who tweet “MWA2010″ on October 5th, 2010

Map of the connections among people who tweet “MWA2010″ on September 29th, 2010

The later graph is defined by three leading contributors who each generated significant retweeting along with mentions and replies.

I attended the previous 2009 Mobile Web Africa conference in Johannesburg, South Africa, organized by AllAmber Media which also featured a focus on the next wave of mobile devices and services.

Mobile is BIG in Africa.  The “Remote control of the Universe” = Mobile Phone.

The speaker from Samsung last year noted that for many Africans, the mobile device is their first and main method for managing digital objects.  A phone is not just a phone, it is a still and video camera, music player, watch, web browser, flashlight, wallet and file system.

The representative from Yonder Mobile Media noted that mobile phones have now exceeded the installed base of the previously most widely used communication technology: FM Radio.  But mobile is different from FM: mobile devices are two way, provide a method for exchanging payments, and are a primary method of access to the internet for many billions of people.  Mobile is the “first” screen for many people in Africa, not the third screen role that it plays in more developed economies.  Regional services like MXIT and The Grid are offering Internet services tailored to affordable mobile devices.

Photos from this year’s event:

Photos from last year’s event:

Photos from Cape Town:

2010 - Sept - UC Davis CTSA SNA Community Engagement

CTSA Community Engagement and Social Network Analysis Workshop
September 22-24, 2010
University of California Davis
Clinical and Translational Science Center
Sacramento, California

OBJECTIVES

• Understand the basic concepts, tools, and techniques of Social Network Analysis (SNA) and how they relate to the evaluation of CTSAs and their impact on community research networks.
• Have sufficient exposure to a basic software tool for inputting and analyzing network data in order to undertake a simple social network analysis.
• Enumerate some possible uses of SNA and how to develop data collection tools or use existing sources to study the process and impact of CTSA on community engaged research.
• List primary authors of SNA analyses relevant to CTSA and community engaged research.

Presentation by Noshir Contractor from Northwestern University

10:30-Noon Demonstration of NodeXL Software

Marc Smith.

NodeXL is a free and open add-in for Excel that supports network overview, discovery and exploration. A contributor to NodeXL will provide basic instruction in its use, how to generate useful network statistics and metrics, how to create visualizations of network graphs and how to filter and display attributes that can be used to highlight important structures in networks.

1:00-1:45 Using NodeXL

Joe Hunt, MPH, Indiana University (with Marc Smith)

Using NodeXL to visualize interactions between investigators and CTSA key functions.

I will be speaking at the Princeton Club of Northern California on May 12, 2010.

The 2009 American Sociological Association Annual Meeting was held in San Francisco, California, August 8-11.

The ASA attracts thousands of sociologists, a subsection of whom have  a passion for the study of the Internet and its many forms of social impacts and uses.  The Communications and Information Technology Section of the American Sociological Association (CITASA) is the group that gathers many forms of social science research on the creation and uses of information technology.  This year’s meeting included two CITASA panels, round tables, a business meeting with awards, and a (windy!) boat ride through San Francisco Bay and beneath the Golden Gate Bridge.

The CITASA sponsored papers at the conference are listed below.  The range of work illustrates the continued interest in social science studies of the impacts of information technology.

Session 1: Cultural Divergences and Convergences: Mediated Communication, Community, and Social Networks
Presider: Laura Robinson, Santa Clara University
10:30 – 12:10 PM, Location: Parc 55 Hotel

Reframing Public Space Through Digital Mobilization: The Case of Flash Mobs
Virág Molnár

The Consumption of Online News at Work
Pablo J. Boczkowski

French Software Politics: The Freedom Discourse and Globalization from Below
Sara Schoonmaker

Convergence in E-Campaigning: Comparing the Use of Attacks on German and American Political Web Sites
Eva Johanna Schweitzer

The Flow of Mediated Culture: Trends of Supply and Demand 1960-2005
W. Russell Neuman

Session 2: Sociology of Communications and IT
Presider: Keith N. Hampton, University of Pennsylvania
2:30 – 4:10 PM, Location: Parc 55 Hotel

Gauging the Impact of e-Research in the Social Sciences
Ralph Schroeder, Eric T. Meyer, University of Oxford

Does Previous Technology Use Influence Later Opinions Linking Use to Work Experiences, Relationships, and Time?
Noelle A. Chesley, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Medical Conversations in Technology Enabled Communities: Perceived Benefits of Participation in Online Patient Communities
Gul Seckin

Model Failure: Assemblages, Performances, and Uneasy Collaborations in Commercial Construction
Gina Neff, University of Washington; Brittany Fiore-Silfvast, University of Washington; Carrie Sturts Dossick, University of Washington

Core Discussion Networks, Internet and Mobile Phone Use: New Media are not Increasing Privatism in America
Keith N. Hampton, University of Pennsylvania; Lauren Sessions, University of Pennsylvania; Eun Ja Her, University of Pennsylvania

————–

Round tables (1-hour): Open Submission
Organizer: Steven G. Hoffman, SUNY Buffalo
8:30 – 9:30 AM, Location: Parc 55 Hotel

Table 1: Communication and Information Technologies at the Producer-Consumer Nexus
Presider: Chris Rhomberg, Fordham University

A Tale of Two Newspaper Chains: Gannett, Knight Ridder, and the Crisis of American Newspapers
Chris Rhomberg, Fordham University

Analyzing design activity in architect and user talk-in-interaction: a preliminary analysis
Rachael Luck, University of Reading

Distributed Cognition and the Emerging Peer-to-Peer Production Model
Michael Restivo, Stony Brook University

Table 2: Communication and Information Technologies, Community, and Sexuality

Negotiating identities/remediating queering desires: Coming out and coming of age online
Mary L. Gray, Indiana University

Sociological Examination of People’s Attitude Towards Online Dating
Xue Liu, Clemson University

The Amorous Migrant: Race, Interracial Desire and Relocation in Cyberspace
Nicholas Andrew Boston, Cambridge University/Lehman College of the City University of New York

Virtually Gay: The Internet and the Construction of Hybrid Queer Identities and Transnational Gay Cultures

James Paul Thing, University of Southern California

Table 3: The Internet and Political Engagement I
Presider: Phil Howard, University of Washington

Bringing the body back in: considering the role of the body in deliberative democracy
Amy Stuart, New School for Social Research ICANN and Internet Governance
Hangwoo Lee, Chungbuk National University

Social Capital and Political Mobilization in Online Community
Jun Young Ah, Yonsei university; Jeong-han Kang, Yonsei University

Vitalizing Donation Culture in Korea: Comparison of Strategies between Traditional Off-line and New Online Donations
Sun Hyoung Lee, Yonsei University

Table 4: The Internet and Political Engagement II

A Facilitator of Civic Engagement in Online Group Contexts
Ja Hyouk Koo, University of Virginia

Muslim resistance online: a diasporic Pakistani punk music subculture on the Internet
Dhiraj Murthy, Bowdoin College

Transylvania, the Internet, and the Strategic Construction of Ethnic/National Identity
J. Patrick Williams, Nanyang Technological University

Table 5: New Technologies, Social Change and Knowledge
Presider: James A. Evans, University of Chicago

How the Internet Shrinks Knowledge By Extending It
James A. Evans, University of Chicago

Socializing the Mobile Phone: Young Urban Poor’s Fascination at Play
Lip Soon Wong, Telenor Research and Innovation Center

Social Networks inside the Enterprise: analyzing colleague link patterns in an IT workplace
Marc Smith

Table 6: Computer Mediated Communication, Social Capital, and Symbolic Interaction
Presider: Simon Gottschalk, University of Nevada- Las Vegas

Dramaturgy, Technology and Public Health: Finding Sex Partners Online among Men who have Sex with Men
Anthony P. Lombardo, University of Toronto

eIntelligence: Social Intelligence in Computer-Mediated Communication
Simon Gottschalk, University of Nevada- Las Vegas

How to Ground a Child in Cyberspace: Parents’ Exploration of Norms and Rules
Mito Akiyoshi, Senshu University

Structured Talk and Web 2.0: Blogs and Community Formation

Kenneth M. Kambara, California Lutheran University

Table 7: Communication Technologies and Network Formation
Presider: John P. Robinson, University of Maryland

Events and Attendees in Two Countries: Factors Influencing the Size and Composition of Online Social Groups
Ryan M. Acton, University of California, Irvine

From each according to media? Testing Wellman’s theory of networked individualism
Bernard Hogan, University of Toronto

The Composition of a Korean Immigrant Social Network
Sun Kyong Lee, Rutgers University

Table 8: Information Production, Coordination and Distribution

Order, Coordination and Uncertainty in Online Information Systems”
Judd Antin, University of California, Berkeley
Coye V. Cheshire, University of California, Berkeley

When High Commitment Hurts: Evidence from Wikipedia
Andreea Gorbatai, Harvard University

Wikipedia: Community or a social movement?
Piotr Konieczny, University of Pittsburgh

[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

Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy

I attended the “Studying Society In A Digital World” conference at the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University.  They just posted most of the conference slides.  I took some pictures and have inserted them next to the link for slides where I had a picture (or a good one!).  The conference was very useful and informative: there is a great trend towards sensor driven data sets that, in aggregate, illuminate large complex systems in detailed and surprising ways.

Talks from SenseNetworks and MIT made the vision of a continuous “trail” document assembled by location and biological sensors from every human on earth seem not so outlandish. Samuel Madden from MIT spoke about opportunistic mobile wifi connectivity in moving vehicles.  MIT rebuilt the WiFi stack to enable 13ms associations instead of 13 second associations with an access point.  The result is that a car with such a WiFi card can drive along Boston city streets and exchange about 200KB a minute with open unsecured access points along the way.  Free bandwidth in the city.  What do they do with it?  They stream live telemetry of a fleet of cabs.  The cabs have accelerometers on them and GPS which is reported in almost real time back to a server.  Along with the engine computer’s data, they collect a ton of data about traffic and road surface quality.  They can see changing patterns in the activity levels of the cabs and infer changing activity at businesses.

A major theme of several presentations was crowdsourcing for science, with talks about ebird.org and galaxyzoo highlighting a distinction between sites that enable a group to collect data (ebird) – with the associated issues of data validity — and those sites that enable a group to annotate data (galaxyzoo) that has already been expertly collected.

Lada Adamic: Social Influence and the Diffusion of User-Generated Content

Chris Barrett: Co-evolution of Sociotechnical Networks and Individual Behavior

Kathleen M. Carley: Information & Belief Diffusion Through Social Networks: Empirically Grounded Simulation

Damon Centola: New Theory and Experiments on Diffusion in Social Networks

Pablo Chavez: The Current Policy Debates Over Online Information Practices: Implications for Research in the Digital Age

Nosh Contractor: Digital Traces: An Exploratorium for Understanding & Enabling Social Networks

Nathan Eagle, Michael Macy: Scaling of Sociodynamics

Scott Golder: Temporal Rhythms in Electronic Society: Examples from Facebook and Elsewhere

Eric Horvitz: Through the Lens of a Large Instant-Messaging Network: Planetary-Scale Views on Behavior

Tony Jebara: Learning Networks of Places and People from Location Data

Steve Kelling: eBird: The Long Tail of Community Engagement in the Scientific Process

Jon Kleinberg: Spatial Signatures of On-line Behavior

Robert Kraut: Theory-Based Design of On-Line Worlds

W. Russell Neuman: Social Science and Policy Praxis

Jukka-Pekka Onnela: Using Cell Phones to Study the Large-Scale Structure of Social Networks

Paul Resnick: Understanding Opinion Diversity Preferences Through Field Experiments

Matthew Salganik: Community-Generated and Community-Sorted Information In his presentation Matt made the remarkable connection between deliberative democracy and the cat comparrison site: Kitten Wars.  His talk introduced a model for a kind of Am I Hot or Not for political discussions.  His group built a web site that helped the student community at Princeton set its priorities for student government.  The work has significant implications fo deliberation tools for organizations and enterprises.  Unlike systems that simply encourage users to contribute ideas to a potentially long and never acted upon list, this system forces a comparison task that can be performed in one click but demands implicit contrasts and estimation of value.  The use of the almost adictive “hot or not” style interface (or more accurately, kittenwars)  allows users to decide between, for example, longer hours for the student cafeteria or expanded video rental services, and get presented with their estimate in the context of other’s choices and the opportunity to choose between two things again.  After a population has run through a set of pair-wise contrasts a broader sense of the priorities of the community can be calculated.

In my talk, I focused on the idea that information want not to be free or expensive, rather, information wants to be copied.  Like DNA, the goal of any string of bits is to make a duplicate copy of themselves.  Several technical realities mean that while information may exist on a spectrum from private to public, it only moves in one direction (public) and almost never back.  Once made public on the Internet, even if only for a moment, a photo, document, or other digital object is almost certainly to have been copied, indexed, backed up, or replicated.  All efforts to delete a digital object once widely distributed is like trying to take wine out of water.  This is because all cryptography become brittle over time, most bits end up exposed after they get distributed, and more events trigger widespread distribution of bits than expected (for example, linking a photo, and a location, to a tweet that gets copied to LinkedIn and Facebook, that then appears in an RSS feed and is copied from there to Friend Feed.  As it travels, information looses more of the access controls that initially made it relatively private until it is effectively public.

Marc Smith talks about information at Princeton CITP "Studying Society in a Digital World" Conference - Photo Credit: Scott Golder

Marc Smith: Autobiography, Mobile Social Life-Lagging and the Transition from Ephemeral to Archival Society

Joshua Tauberer: Watching the Watchers: Government Oversight with Civic Hacking

Marshall Van Alstyne: Information, Social Networks and Productivity

Sadly, no picture for Luis Van Ahn’s talk: however, this presentation was a fascinating review of the capcha and re-capcha services and the new direction of providing translation services as language learning games.  Luis Van Ahn invented capcha, felt bad about the cumulative human time wasted by filling out those squiggle word puzzels to get on a web site, and decided to harness capchas to a useful task: text recognition for books.  To translate words from bad scans of books that the OCR software fails to recognize correctly, the garbled data is presented to humans, who, collectively, have translated millions of previously unintelligible words.  Now, his new project is to expand the small user population of bi or multilingual speakers who can translate between languages.  The approach applies the “Mechanical Turk” “human intelligence task” concept to language translation.  His language translation service presents foreign language sentences to users with all dictionary words from a simple translation listed below.  Users click on best word selection beneath each foreign word.  The surprising results: pretty good translations AND users start learning a foreign language!

Luis von Ahn: Human Computation