ĵ > Statistical Analysis of the Social Network and Discussion Threads in Slashdot: A HORRIBLE PAPER presentation by Mykell Miller

Statistical Analysis of the Social Network and Discussion Threads in Slashdot: A HORRIBLE PAPER presentation by Mykell Miller

Page 1
Statistical Analysis of the Social Network and Discussion Threads in Slashdot: A HORRIBLE PAPER
presentation by Mykell Miller

Page 2
Why study Slashdot?
Because you haven't heard of:
C Non-nerds C Youtube's comment ranking system C Other news sites that allow comments C Websites were you can't post anonymously
Because of the important relationships on it
C People visit Slashdot to read articles, not comments C Most comments are not discussions

Page 3
The Social Network: Building the Network
Over 30% of comments were discarded
C They're not studying the social network on
Slashdot. They're studying their favorite part of it.
C The discarded comments are not at all random C
discarding them greatly changes the structure of the network

Page 4
The Social Network: General Description
The table on page 647 is horrible
C What kind of random graph? Erdos-Renyi? With
what probability of a link being formed?
C So many abbreviations that it's impossible to read

Page 5
The Social Network: Degree Distributions
Power law vs lognormal distributions

Page 6
The Social Network: Mixing by Score
Discarding -1 comments
C Don't you want to know how much spam, trolling,
etc. is on Slashdot?
C Or do you just not want to tarnish the image of your
beloved Slashdot?
Bias in favor of good writers
C Duh

Page 7
The Social Network: Community Structure
Most clusters are of size 1
C Most people ignore each other.
This section is determining the strength of ties
C But you ignored the research of Granovetter, the
daddy of strength of ties

Page 8
Structure of the Discussions:
Radial tree representation
Most branches are only 1 deep
C People usually don't reply to each other C It's not much of a network, it's more of an
assortment

Page 9
Structure of the Discussions:
The H-index as a Structural Measure of Controversy
The worst section of a paper to ever be written Objective analysis of a subjective quality
requires the objective measure to make sense
Or the objective measure can be based off of
something subjective but quantitative, such as someone ranking the level of controversy on a scale.

Page 10
Structure of the Discussions:
The H-index as a Structural Measure of Controversy
Good measures of controversy:
C The frequency of swear words in comments C Sentiment analysis of comments C The results of a survey in which people ranked the
level of controversy
Barely passable measures of controversy:
C One person ranks the level of controversy
Horrible measure of controversy
C The depth of the tree

Ϊҳ | ղ |

All Rights Reserved Powered by ĵ

Copyright © 2011
ĵ磬ַϵtousu#anggang.com
ض