Detecting evangelists and detractors on twitter

WebMedia 2010 - Anais de Artigos Completos do XVI Simposio Brasileiro de Sistemas Multimidia e Web

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 107-114

  Bigonha, Carolina ^a   Cardoso, Thiago N C ^a   Moro, Mirella M ^a   Almeida, Virgílio A F ^a   Gonçalves, Marcos A ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Network topology; Twitter; User influence

Indexed keywords

ELECTRIC NETWORK TOPOLOGY; MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS; POPULATION STATISTICS; TOPOLOGY; WEBSITES;

EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION; MOST INFLUENTIAL USERS; NETWORK INFLUENCES; NETWORK TOPOLOGY; ON-LINE COMMUNITIES; STRATEGIC ANALYSIS; TWITTER; USER INFLUENCES;

SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

EID: 84855248466     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. R. A. Baeza-Yates and B. Ribeiro-Neto. Modern Information Retrieval. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 1999.
2. P. Bonacich. Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Social Networks, 29(4):555-564, 2007.
3. M. Cha et al. Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy. In Procs. Intl. AAAI Conf. on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM).
4. L. F. Costa et al. Characterization of complex networks: A survey of measurements. Advances In Physics, 56:167 2007.
5. D. H. Dalip et al. Automatic quality assessment of content created collaboratively by web communities: a case study of wikipedia. In Procs. Joint Conf. on Digital libraries (JCDL), pages 295-304, 2009.
6. N. A. Diakopoulos and D. A. Shamma. Characterizing debate performance via aggregated twitter sentiment. In Procs. Intl. Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), 2010.
7. B. A. Huberman, D. M. Romero, and F. Wu. Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. ArXiv e-prints, December 2008.
8. A. Java et al. Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. In Procs. of WebKDD and SNA-KDD Workshop on Web Mining and Social Network Analysis, pages 56-65, 2007.
9. B. Krishnamurthy, P. Gill, and M. Arlitt. A few chirps about twitter. In Procs. Workshop on Online Social Networks (WOSP), pages 19-24, 2008.
10. A. Leavitt et al. New approaches for analyzing influence on twitter. Technical report.
11. M. E. J. Newman. Power laws, pareto distributions and zipf's law. Contemporary Physics, 46(5), 2005.
12. S. Ressler. Perspectives on electronic publishing: standards, solutions, and more. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1993.
13. T. Rodrigues, F. Benevenuto, V. Almeida, J. Almeida, and M. Gonçalves. Uma análise contextual de conteúdo duplicado no youtube. In WebMedia 2009, Fortaleza, CE, Brasil, 2009.
14. Twitter Blog. Measuring Tweets. http://blog.twitter.com/2010/02/measuring-tweets.html, 2010.
15. J. Weng et al. Twitterrank: finding topic-sensitive influential twitterers. In Procs. ACM Intl. Conf. on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM), pages 261-270, 2010.