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.
Based on an informal review of research from technology providers, industry analyst firms, and industry expert reports in the data discovery arena, the following short list of enablers highlights companies and technologies that may be useful to technology providers as legal discovery professionals seek to move “to the left of the EDRM” and closer to the point of data creation in their data discovery efforts.
In 2017, the challenge for technology providers in the legal and data discovery spaces appears to be less about defining offering requirements and validating market needs and more about developing and delivering solutions that focus on specific tasks and processes that streamline the discovery of data and the conduct of eDiscovery.
The Victorian Supreme Court will issue a practice note about the use of TAR on 1 January 2017. We understand it will be the first court in Australia to do so. We expect that other Australian courts will follow suit in issuing a practice note, and it will be interesting to follow the approaches taken by other Australian courts.
The biggest takeaway of the joint research project by nonprofit Electronic Discovery Institute and tech giant Oracle Corp. is that TAR is often faster and cheaper when identifying relevant documents. But when it comes to isolating privileged or sensitive information, human reviewers outperformed machines.
ComplexDiscovery | Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International