Difference between revisions of "Compare Measuring User Influence in Twitter and Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation"

From Cohen Courses
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
== Problem ==
 
== Problem ==
Both paper address the same problem i.e. understanding the process of public opinion formation. Watts's paper establishes a theoretical foundation for information diffusion and Cha's paper offers the empirical evidence on a real-world social network Twitter.
+
Both paper address the same problem i.e. understanding the process of public opinion formation. Watts's paper establishes a theoretical foundation for information diffusion and Cha's paper offers the empirical evidence on a real-world social network: Twitter.
 +
 
 +
== Dataset ==
 +
Watts's paper only uses synthetic dataset. However, Cha's paper adopt the Twitter dataset consists of 54M users and    1,755,925,520 tweets.
 +
 
  
 
== Big idea ==
 
== Big idea ==
  
== Dataset ==
+
 
  
  

Revision as of 00:14, 6 November 2012

Two Papers

  1. Measuring_User_Influence_in_Twitter:_The_Million_Follower_Fallacy, Cha, M. and Haddadi, H. and Benevenuto, F. and Gummadi, K.P., ICWSM 2010
  2. Influentials,_Networks,_and_Public_Opinion_Formation, Watts, Duncan J., and Peter Sheridan Dodds. Journal of consumer research 34.4 (2007): 441-458.

Problem

Both paper address the same problem i.e. understanding the process of public opinion formation. Watts's paper establishes a theoretical foundation for information diffusion and Cha's paper offers the empirical evidence on a real-world social network: Twitter.

Dataset

Watts's paper only uses synthetic dataset. However, Cha's paper adopt the Twitter dataset consists of 54M users and 1,755,925,520 tweets.


Big idea

Method

Additional Questions

  • How much time did you spend reading the (new, non-wikified) paper you summarized? 3.5 hour.
  • How much time did you spend reading the old wikified paper? 30 minutes.
  • How much time did you spend reading the summary of the old paper? 15 minutes
  • How much time did you spend reading background materiel? 30 minutes
  • Was there a study plan for the old paper? No