Difference between revisions of "Compare Y. Borghol et al. 2011 and The Untold Story of the Clones: Content-agnostic Factors that Impact YouTube Video Popularity"
(→Papers) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Papers == | == Papers == | ||
| − | + | 1. [[Y. Borghol et al. Performance Evaluation 68 2011|Characterizing and modelling popularity of user-generated videos, Y. Borghol et al., Performance Evaluation 68 2011]] | |
| − | + | ||
| + | 2. [[The Untold Story of the Clones: Content-agnostic Factors that Impact YouTube Video Popularity|The Untold Story of the Clones: Content-agnostic Factors that Impact YouTube Video Popularity, Y Borghol et al., KDD, 2012]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Problem == | ||
| + | Although both papers study the popularity dynamics of user-generated videos, the focus is quite different. Paper 1 tries to characterize the evolution of YouTube video popularity in a general sense, while Paper 2 focuses on the content-agnostic factors only, and deliberately removes the impact that might be caused by video content. In paper 1, a three-phase evolution model is proposed to explain the popularity dynamics, while paper 2 does not have such characterization. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Method== | ||
| + | For characterizing the popularity evolution of videos, Paper 1 proposes a time-to-peak distribution based on empirical analysis, and uses a three-phase (before, at and after peak) model to account for temporal varying factors that impact popularity, while Paper 2 uses PCA, correlation analysis techniques, and a multi-linear regression model for assessing the importance of different content-agnostic factors. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Dataset== | ||
| + | Paper 1 uses a dataset tracking the views of recently uploaded YouTube videos over the duration of eight months. Paper 2 uses clone sets of videos to explicitly remove the content factors that might impact the popularity. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Other== | ||
| + | Both papers were written by the same authors, and Paper 2 is a follow-up work of Paper 1 for specifically focusing on the content-agnostic factors. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Additional Questions== | ||
| + | 1. How much time did you spend reading the (new, non-wikified) paper you summarized? 1 hour | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2. How much time did you spend reading the old wikified paper? 1.5 hours (It's a much longer paper) | ||
| + | |||
| + | 3. How much time did you spend reading the summary of the old paper? 15 minutes | ||
| + | |||
| + | 4. How much time did you spend reading background materiel? 30 minutes | ||
| + | |||
| + | 5. Was there a study plan for the old paper? No | ||
Latest revision as of 13:38, 5 November 2012
Papers
Problem
Although both papers study the popularity dynamics of user-generated videos, the focus is quite different. Paper 1 tries to characterize the evolution of YouTube video popularity in a general sense, while Paper 2 focuses on the content-agnostic factors only, and deliberately removes the impact that might be caused by video content. In paper 1, a three-phase evolution model is proposed to explain the popularity dynamics, while paper 2 does not have such characterization.
Method
For characterizing the popularity evolution of videos, Paper 1 proposes a time-to-peak distribution based on empirical analysis, and uses a three-phase (before, at and after peak) model to account for temporal varying factors that impact popularity, while Paper 2 uses PCA, correlation analysis techniques, and a multi-linear regression model for assessing the importance of different content-agnostic factors.
Dataset
Paper 1 uses a dataset tracking the views of recently uploaded YouTube videos over the duration of eight months. Paper 2 uses clone sets of videos to explicitly remove the content factors that might impact the popularity.
Other
Both papers were written by the same authors, and Paper 2 is a follow-up work of Paper 1 for specifically focusing on the content-agnostic factors.
Additional Questions
1. How much time did you spend reading the (new, non-wikified) paper you summarized? 1 hour
2. How much time did you spend reading the old wikified paper? 1.5 hours (It's a much longer paper)
3. How much time did you spend reading the summary of the old paper? 15 minutes
4. How much time did you spend reading background materiel? 30 minutes
5. Was there a study plan for the old paper? No
