Isword-of-mouthcorrelatedtoGeneralElectionresults?

Theresultsarein.

OurexperimenttoidentifyifthereisacorrelationbetweenthevolumeofTwittermentionsforelectioncandidatesandtheelectionresultsiscomplete–producingthefollowingresults:

Individualseatpredictionswere69%accurate

(av.samplesize=677tweetsperconstituency)

2.

Regionalpartyperformancepredictionswere87.5%accurate

(av.samplesize=37,000tweetsperregion)

3.

Nationalshareofvotespredictionswere90.5%accurate(anaverageerrorof1.75pointsforeveryparty–lowerthanmostopinionpolls)

(samplesize=2,010,000tweets)



Fromtheseresultswecandrawthreekeyinsights:

ThereisacorrelationbetweenthenumberofTwittermentionsandacandidatewinningtheseat.2.

Themodelisbetteratpredictingnational&regionaltrendsthanpredictingtheoutcomeofindividuallocalevents.3.

Thereisastrongcorrelationbetweensamplesizeoftweetsanalysedandaccuracy.Despiteinstancesinwhichthemodelissusceptibletodisproportionatemediaactivity,themodelisaccurateingaininginsightintotrendsatanationalandregionallevel.

Thisleadstothefollowingconclusions:

Theexperimentsucceededinpredictingthenationalvotewithcomparableaccuracytoopinionpolls.2.

Thedataaccuratelyindicatedpartyperformancesataregionallevel.3.

Thelargerthesamplesizeoftweets,thehighertheaccuracyofthepredictions.Nationalandregionaltrendsmostdefinitelyimpactlocal

outcomes,yetthedistributionofthisimpactgiventhesmallersamplesizeoftweetsatalocallevelcannotbefullyassessedbymeasuringbuzzalone.

TheresultspresentaninterestingcorrelationbetweenTwittermentionsandelectoralsuccess–suggestingsocialmedia‘buzz’onplatformslikeTwitterareagoodindicatorofelectionperformanceandgaugingthepublicmood.

Recapofthepredictivemodellingexperiment.

FromTuesdayMarch30thupuntiltheelectionwecountedthementionsforcandidatesonTwitterandmodelledpredictionsfortheconstituency,regionalandnationalvotesbasedonthisdata.TheaimofthestudywastoassessifthefrequencyofTwittermentionsforcandidatescouldhelptopredictwhichoneswouldbesuccessful.Thedatasetwasfedfromall433constituenciesrepresentedonTwitter,i.e.candidatesmentionedonTwittercouldbeattributedto433outof650UKconstituencies.2,010,000tweetswereprocessedoverthe4weekstudyperiod.Thefullmethodologyweusedcanbefoundat:http://www.scribd.com/doc/29154537/Tweetminster-PredictsThisexperimentwasnotapollingexercise,norastatisticalanalysisproject.Asaresultwedonotpresentastatisticalmarginoferrorcalculation,standarddeviationcalculationsorclaimstatisticalrelevanceintheresults.However,theresultsaretooaccuratetobeaccountedforbychanceorcoincidence,theystronglysuggestthatthelevelofaccuracyofthepredictionsaregroundsforconfirmingthepredictivepowerofTwitterisreliable.

Methodologynotes:

•

AlldatawasgatheredbyqueryingtheTwitterAPI.

•

Themathematicalmethodologyissimpleaddition(e.g.1+1=2)ofcandidatementions.

•

Thecandidatewiththemostmentionswaspredictedthewinnerineachseat.

•

Thesharesofnationalvotepercentageswerecalculatedfromaddingthepercentagesofmentionsforeachpartyinthetotalsample.

•

TheregionsthatformedtheregionalbreakdownsarethestandardusedefinitionsofUKmainlandregions.

•

Thenationalvotewascalculatedbylookingatthepercentagebreakdownofpartymentions(bycandidate)ineachoftheanalysedseatsandcalculatingthepercentagesofpartymentionswithinthe433seatsonTwitter.



Nationalpartysharesofvotepredictions

Topredictthetop-linenationalfiguresnoweightingwasapplied-werecorded2,010,000mentionsandcountedthementionsforcandidatesineachofthe433constituenciesanalysed,andrepeatedthiscounteachweektoincludecandidates joiningTwitterduringthestudyperiod.Thepercentageofmentionsforeachpartyinthe433constituenciesgavethefollowingprojectedshareofthevote:

(actualmay6

figuresanderrorinour predictioninred)



ConservativesLabourLiberalDemocratsOthers35%30%27%8%37%(-2)30%(0)24%(+3)10%(-2)



Whichgivesthepredictivemodelanaverageaccuracyof90.5%-oranaverageerrorof1.75

Comparedwithpollingpredictions,ourexperimentwaslessaccuratethanICM(1.25),onaparwithIpsosMORI,Populus&Harris(1.75),andmoreaccuratethanYouGov,ComRes,Opinium(2.25)AngusReid&TNSBMRB(3.25)(Source:http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2692

)



Duringthefourweeksofourstudy,thetop-linefiguresvariedasfollowed: