Presented during the 2012 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2012), the following original research on “the value of microblog content” is shared for your review and consideration.
Prepared by Paul Andre (Carnegie Mellon University), Michael Bernstein (MIT) and Kurt Luther (Georgia Institute of Technology), “Who Gives a Tweet: Evaluating Microblog Content Value” offers quantifiable insight into the perceived value of Twitter “tweets” through the lens of content, context and evolving social norms.
Primary questions considered as part of this milestone study of over 43,000 volunteer ratings on Twitter include:
“Conventional wisdom exists around these questions, but to our knowledge this is the first work to rigorously examine whether the commonly held truths are accurate. Further, by collecting many ratings, we are able to quantify effect sizes. A better understanding of content value will allow us to improve the overall experience of microblogging.” (Study Authors)
Predictors of “tweet” value in this study were based on “worth reading””neutral” or “not worth reading” ratings of individual tweets from eight specific categories that included.
Additionally, the reasons for determining whether a tweet was “liked” or “disliked” ranged from:
Reasons for Liking
Reasons for Disliking
PDF Version of Study: Click here.
Source: “Who Gives a Tweet: Evaluating Microblog Content Value” – Paul Andre (Carnegie Mellon University), Michael Bernstein (MIT) and Kurt Luther (Georgia Institute of Technology) – as prepared for CSCW’12, February 11–15, 2012, Seattle, Washington.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 21st, 2012 at 1:49 pm. It is filed under chronology, discover, Insight and tagged with research, social media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments are closed.
Before organizational leaders begin to apply valuable resources to evaluating the impact of new technology or the value of a new service, it is important they have a feel for the ability of the technology or service to be delivered, managed, and supported over time. Many vendors and integrators champion their ability to solve a problem with a new technology or service but fall short of providing convincing evidence that they can support that problem solving over time and at volume.
Our quest for quality legal search requires that we keep the natural human weakness of inconsistency front and center. Only computers are perfectly consistent. To help keep the human reviewers as consistent as possible, and so mitigate any damages that inconsistent coding may cause, a whole panoply of quality control and quality assurance methods should be used, not just improved search methods.
What Special Master Grossman ordered was a controlled fishing expedition. To the extent either party had questions about the processes, procedures or even the bona fides of the other side, Grossman gave them a chance to do a little fishing. What was really novel about the idea is that she didn’t open the waters to a full-scale fishing expedition. Rather, she gave each party a limited chance to challenge one or more parts of the process to the extent they thought something smelled (well, how could I resist?) fishy.
ComplexDiscovery | Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International