Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Icwsm2010 Cha

Icwsm2010 Cha

Ratings: (0)|Views: 157|Likes:
Published by Datalicious Pty Ltd

More info:

Published by: Datalicious Pty Ltd on May 18, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/20/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy
Meeyoung Cha
Hamed Haddadi
Fabr´ıcio Benevenuto
Krishna P. Gummadi
Max Planck Institute for Software Systems (MPI-SWS), Germany
Royal Veterinary College, University of London, United Kingdom
CS Dept., Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil
Abstract
Directed links in social media could represent anythingfrom intimate friendships to common interests, or evena passion for breaking news or celebrity gossip. Suchdirected links determine the flow of information andhence indicate a user’s
influence
on others—a conceptthat is crucial in sociology and viral marketing. In thispaper, using a large amount of data collected from Twit-ter, we present an in-depth comparison of three mea-sures of influence: indegree, retweets, and mentions.Based on these measures, we investigate the dynam-ics of user influence across topics and time. We makeseveral interesting observations. First, popular userswho have high indegree are not necessarily influentialin terms of spawning retweets or mentions. Second,mostinfluentialuserscanholdsignificantinfluenceovera variety of topics. Third, influence is not gained spon-taneously or accidentally, but through concerted effortsuch as limiting tweets to a single topic. We believe thatthese findings provide new insights for viral marketingand suggest that topological measures such as indegreealone reveals very little about the influence of a user.
Introduction
Influence has long been studied in the fields of sociology,communication, marketing, and political science (Rogers1962; Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955). The notion of influenceplays a vital role in how businesses operate and how a soci-etyfunctions—forinstance, seeobservationsonhowfashionspreads (Gladwell 2002) and how people vote (Berry andKeller 2003). Studying influence patterns can help us bet-ter understand why certain trends or innovations are adoptedfaster than others and how we could help advertisers andmarketers design more effective campaigns. Studying influ-ence patterns, however, has been difficult. This is becausesuch a study does not lend itself to readily available quan-tification, and essential components like human choices andthe ways our societies function cannot be reproduced withinthe confines of the lab.Nevertheless, there have been important theoretical stud-ies on the diffusion of influence, albeit with radically dif-ferent results. Traditional communication theory states that
Copyrightc
2010, Association for the Advancement of ArtificialIntelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved.
a minority of users, called
influentials
, excel in persuadingothers (Rogers 1962). This theory predicts that by target-ing these influentials in the network, one may achieve alarge-scale chain-reaction of influence driven by word-of-mouth, with a very small marketing cost (Katz and Lazars-feld 1955). A more modern view, in contrast, de-emphasizesthe role of influentials. Instead, it posits that the key fac-tors determining influence are (
i
) the interpersonal rela-tionship among ordinary users and (
ii
) the readiness of asociety to adopt an innovation (Watts and Dodds 2007;Domingos and Richardson 2001). This modern view of in-fluence leads to marketing strategies such as collaborativefiltering. These theories, however, are still just theories, be-cause there has been a lack of empirical data that could beused to validate either of them. The recent advent of socialnetworking sites and the data within such sites now allowresearchers to empirically validate these theories.Moving from theory into practice, we find that there aremany other unanswered questions about how influence dif-fuses through a population and whether it varies across top-ics and time. People have different levels of expertise onvarious subjects. When it comes to marketing, however, thisfact is generally ignored. Marketing services actively searchfor potential influencers to promote various items. Theseinfluencers range from “cool” teenagers, local opinion lead-ers, all the way to popular public figures. However, the ad-vertised items are often far outside the domain of expertiseof these hired individuals. So how effective are these mar-keting strategies? Can a person’s influence in one area betransferred to other areas?In this paper, we present an empirical analysis of influ-ence patterns in a popular social medium. Using a largeamount of data gathered from Twitter, we compare three dif-ferent measures of influence: indegree, retweets, and men-tions.
1
Focusing on different topics, we examine how thethree types of influential users performed in spreading pop-ular news topics. We also investigate the dynamics of anindividual’s influence by topic and over time. Finally, wecharacterize the precise behaviors that make ordinary indi-viduals gain high influence over a short period of time.
1
Indegree is the number of people who follow a user; retweetsmean the number of times others “forward” a user’s tweet; andmentions mean the number of times others mention a user’s name.
 
The Twitter dataset used in this paper consists of 2 billionfollow links among 54 million users who produced a total of 1.7 billion tweets. We refer readers to our project webpage
http://twitter.mpi-sws.org/ 
for a detailed description of thedataset and our data sharing plan.Our study provides several findings that have direct impli-cations in the design of social media and viral marketing:1) Analysis of the three influence measures provides a betterunderstanding of the different roles users play in socialmedia. Indegree represents popularity of a user; retweetsrepresent the content value of one’s tweets; and mentionsrepresent the name value of a user. Hence, the top usersbased on the three measures have little overlap.2) Our finding on how influence varies across topics couldserve as a useful test for answering how effective adver-tisementinTwitterwouldbeifoneistoemployinfluentialusers. Our analysis shows that most influential users holdsignificant influence over a variety of topics.3) Ordinary users can gain influence by focusing on a sin-gle topic and posting creative and insightful tweets thatare perceived as valuable by others, as opposed to simplyconversing with others.These findings provide new insights for viral marketing.The first finding in particular indicates that indegree alonereveals little about the influence of a user. This has beencoined
the million follower fallacy
by Avnit (Avnit 2009),who pointed to anecdotal evidence that some users followothers simply for etiquette—it’s polite to follow someonewho’s following you—and many do not read all the broad-cast tweets. We have empirically demonstrated that having amillion followers does not always mean much in the Twitterworld. Instead, we claim that it is more influential to havean active audience who retweets or mentions the user.
Defining influence on Twitter
We start by reviewing studies of diffusion of influence andrelated work on influence propagation on Twitter.
Background
There are a number of conflicting ideas and theories abouthow trends and innovations get adopted and spread.The traditional view assumes that a minority of mem-bers in a society possess qualities that make them excep-tionally persuasive in spreading ideas to others. These ex-ceptional individuals drive trends on behalf of the major-ity of ordinary people. They are loosely described as be-ing informed, respected, and well-connected; they are calledthe opinion leaders in the two-step flow theory (Katz andLazarsfeld 1955), innovators in the diffusion of innovationstheory (Rogers 1962), and hubs, connectors, or mavens inother work (Gladwell 2002). The theory of influentials isintuitive and compelling. By identifying and convincing asmallnumber ofinfluential individuals, aviralcampaign canreachawideaudienceatasmallcost. Thetheoryspreadwellbeyond academia and has been adopted in many marketingbusinesses, e.g., RoperASW and Tremor (Gladwell 2002;Berry and Keller 2003).In contrast, a more modern view of information flow em-phasizes the importance of prevailing culture more than therole of influentials. Some researchers have reasoned thatpeople in the new information age make choices based onthe opinions of their peers and friends, rather than by influ-entials (Domingos and Richardson 2001). These researchersargued that direct marketing through influentials would notbe as profitable as using “network”-based advertising suchas collaborative filtering.The traditional influentials theory has also been criticizedbecause its information flow process does not take into ac-count the role of ordinary users. In order to compare therole of influentials and ordinary users, researchers have de-veloped a series of simulations, in which information flowsfreely between users, and a user adopts an innovation whenhe is influenced by more than a threshold of the sample pop-ulation (Watts and Dodds 2007). Influentials were definedas those in the top 10% of influence distribution. The simu-lation showed that influentials initiated more frequent andlarger cascades than average users, but they were neithernecessary nor sufficient for all diffusions, as suggested inthe traditional theory. Moreover, in homogeneous networks,influentials were no more successful in running long cas-cades than ordinary users. This means that a trend’s successdepends not on the person who starts it, but on how suscep-tible the society is overall to the trend (Watts 2007). In fact,a trend can be initiated by any one, and if the environment isright, it will spread. Therefore, Watts dubbed early adoptersor opinion leaders “accidental” influentials.The above competing ideas have remained as hypothesesfor several reasons. First is the lack of data that could beused to empirically test them. Although there exist a handfulof empirical studies on word-of-mouth influence (Leskovec,Adamic, and Huberman 2007; Cha, Mislove, and Gummadi2009), no work has been conducted on the relative orderof influence among individuals. A second issue is the va-riety of ways that influence has been defined (Watts 2007;Goyal, Bonchi, and Lakshmanan 2010). It has been unclearwhat exactly influence means. Finally, decades have passedsince the influentials theory appeared. Even if the theorywas reasonably accurate when it was proposed, things havechanged and now we have much more variability in the flowof influence. In particular, online communities have becomea significant way we receive new information and influencein such communities needs to be explored. In this paper, weinvestigate the notion of influence using a large amount of data collected from a popular social medium, Twitter.
Measuring influence on Twitter
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines influence as “thepower or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intan-gible ways.Despite the large number of theories of influ-ence in sociology, there is no tangible way to measure sucha force nor is there a concrete definition of what influencemeans, for instance, in the spread of news.In this paper, we analyze the Twitter network as a newsspreading medium and study the types and degrees of influ-ence within the network. Focusing on an individual’s po-tential to lead others to engage in a certain act, we highlight
 
three “interpersonalactivities on Twitter. First, users in-teract by
following
updates of people who post interestingtweets. Second, users can pass along interesting pieces of information to their followers. This act is popularly knownas
retweeting
and can typically be identified by the useof 
RT @username
or
via @username
in tweets. Fi-nally, users can respond to (or comment on) other people’stweets, which we call
mentioning
. Mentioning is identifiedby searching for
@username
in the tweet content, after ex-cluding retweets. A tweet that starts with
@username
isnot broadcast to all followers, but only to the replied user. Atweet containing
@username
in the middle of its text getsbroadcast to all followers. These three activities representthe different types of influence of a person:1.
Indegree influence
, the number of followers of a user,directly indicates the size of the audience for that user.2.
Retweet influence
, which we measure through the num-ber of retweets containing one’s name, indicates the abil-ity of that user to generate content with pass-along value.3.
Mention influence
, which we measure through the num-ber of mentions containing one’s name, indicates the abil-ity of that user to engage others in a conversation.
Related work on Twitter
Several recent efforts have been made to track influenceon Twitter. The Web Ecology Project tracked 12 popu-lar Twitter users for a 10-day period and grouped a user’sinfluence into two types: conversation-based and content-based (Leavitt et al. 2009). This work concluded that newsmedia are better at spreading content, while celebrities arebetter at simply making conversation. Our work extendstheir notion of influence and uses extensive data to furtherexamine the spatial and temporal dynamics of influence.More recently, a PageRank-like measure has been pro-posed to quantify influence on Twitter (Weng et al. 2010).The authors found high link reciprocity (72%) from a non-random sample of 6,748 Singapore-based users, and arguedthat high reciprocity is indicative of homophily. They thenexploited this fact in computing a user’ influence rank. Ourstudy, however, contradicts the observation about high reci-procity; near-complete data of Twitter shows low reciprocity(10%). Thus, we predict that social links on Twitter repre-sent an influence relationship, rather than homophily. Ac-cordingly, we ask what are the different activities on Twitterthat represent influence of a user and to what extent a per-son’s influence varies across tweet topic and time.
Characteristics of the top influentials
We describe how we collected the Twitter data and presentthe characteristics of the top users based on three influencemeasures: indegree, retweets, and mentions.
Dataset
We asked Twitter administrators to allow us to gather datafrom their site at scale. They graciously white-listed the IPaddress range containing 58 of our servers, which allowedus to gather large amounts of data. We used the Twitter APIto gather information about a user’s social links and tweets.We launched our crawler in August 2009 for all user IDsranging from 0 to 80 million. We did not look beyond 80million, because no single user in the collected data had alinktoauserwhoseIDwasgreaterthanthatvalue. Outof80million possible IDs, we found 54,981,152 in-use accounts,which were connected to each other by 1,963,263,821 sociallinks. We gathered information about a user’s follow linksand all tweets ever posted by each user since the early daysof the service. In total, there were 1,755,925,520 tweets.Nearly 8% of all user accounts were set private, so that onlytheir friends could view their tweets. We ignore these usersin our analysis. The social link information is based on thefinal snapshot of the network topology at the time of crawl-ing and we do not know when the links were formed.The network of Twitter users comprises a single dispro-portionately large connected component (containing 94.8%of users), singletons (5%), and smaller components (0.2%).The largest component contains 99% of all links and tweets.Our goal is to explore influence of users, hence we focus onthe largest component of the network, which is conceptuallya single interaction domain for users.Because it is hard to determine influence of users whohave few tweets, we borrowed the concept of “active users”from the traditional media research (Levy and Windhal1985) and focused on those users with some minimum levelof activity. We ignored users who had posted fewer than 10tweets during their entire lifetime. We also ignored usersfor whom we did not have a valid screen name, because thisinformation is crucial in identifying the number of times auser was mentioned or retweeted by others. After filtering,there were 6,189,636 users, whom we focus on in the re-mainder of this paper. To measure the influence of these 6million users, however, we looked into how the entire set of 52 million users interacted with these active users.
Methodology for comparing user influence
For each of the 6 million users, we computed the value of each influence measure and compared them. Rather thancomparing the values directly, we used the relative order of users’ ranks as a measure of difference. In order to do this,we sorted users by each measure, so that the rank of 1 in-dicates the most influential user and increasing rank indi-cates a less influential user. Users with the same influencevalue receive the average of the rank amongst them (Buck 1980). Once every user is assigned a rank for each influencemeasure, we are ready to quantify how a user’s rank variesacross different measures and examine what kinds of usersare ranked high for a given measure.We used Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient
ρ
= 1
6
(
x
i
y
i
)
2
3
(1)as a measure of the strength of the association between tworank sets, where
x
i
and
y
i
are the ranks of users based ontwo different influence measures in a dataset of 
users.Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient calculation is a non-parametric test; the coefficient assesses how well an arbi-

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->