Mining web query logs to analyze political issues

Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference, WebSci'12

Volumn volume, Issue , 2012, Pages 330-339

  Weber, Ingmar ^a   Garimella, Venkata Rama Kiran ^a   Borra, Erik ^b  

^a YAHOO RESEARCH   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Opinion mining and sentiment analysis; Partisanship; Political leaning; Web search logs

Indexed keywords

DATA MINING; INTERNET; SOCIAL SCIENCES; WEBSITES;

DATA SETS; GRAPHICAL VISUALIZATION; NEGATIVE SENTIMENTS; PARTISANSHIP; POLITICAL ISSUES; POLITICAL LEANING; QUERY LOGS; SEARCH RESULTS; SENTIMENT ANALYSIS; WEB SEARCH LOGS; WEB SEARCH QUERIES; WIKIPEDIA;

ONLINE SEARCHING;

EID: 84869007880     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2380718.2380761     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (49)

1. Adamic, L. A., and Glance, N. The political blogosphere and the 2004 u.s. election: divided they blog. In LinkKDD@KDD (2005), 36-43.
2. Benkler, Y., and Shaw, A. A tale of two blogospheres: Discursive practices on the left and right, 2010. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ publications/2010/Tale-Two-Blogospheres-Discursive-Practices-Left-Right.
3. Borra, E., and Weber, I. Methods for exploring partisan search queries, 2012. http://erikborra.net/blog/2012/04/methods-forexploring-partisan-search- queries/.
4. Boutet, A., and Yoneki, E. Member classification and party characteristics in twitter during uk election. In DYNAM (2011).
5. Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., and Poblete, B. Information credibility on twitter. In WWW (2011), 675-684.
6. Efron, M. The liberal media and right-wing conspiracies: using cocitation information to estimate political orientation in web documents. In CIKM (2004), 390-398.
7. Ennals, R., Trushkowsky, B., and Agosta, J. M. Highlighting disputed claims on the web. In WWW (2010), 341-350.
8. Fang, Y., Si, L., Somasundaram, N., and Yu, Z. Mining contrastive opinions on political texts using cross-perspective topic model. In WSDM (2012), 63-72.
9. Gamon, M., Basu, S., Belenko, D., Fisher, D., Hurst, M., and König, A. Blews: Using blogs to provide context for news articles. In ICWSM (2008), 60-67.
10. Gayo-Avello, D., Metaxas, P. T., and Mustafaraj, E. Limits of electoral predictions using twitter. In ICWSM (2011).
11. Ginsberg, J., Mohebbi, M., Patel, R., Brammer, L., Smolinski, M., and Brilliant, L. Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature 457, 7232 (2008), 1012-1014.
12. Goel, S., Hofman, J., Lahaie, S., Pennock, D., and Watts, D. Predicting consumer behavior with web search. PNAS 107, 41 (2010), 17486-17490.
13. Golbeck, J., and Hansen, D. Computing political preference among twitter followers. In CHI (2011), 1105-1108.
14. Granka, L. Measuring agenda setting with online search traffic: Influences of online and traditional media. In APSA (2010).
15. Granka, L. A. Inferring the public agenda from implicit query data. In UIIR@SIGIR (2009), 28-31.
16. Hargittai, E., Gallo, J., and Kane, M. Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice 134, 1 (2008), 67-86.
17. Hindman, M. The myth of digital democracy. Princeton University Press, 2008.
18. Jungherr, A., Jrgens, P., and Schoen, H. Why the pirate party won the german election of 2009 or the trouble with predictions: A response to tumasjan, a., sprenger, t. o., sander, p. g., & welpe, i. m. "predicting elections with twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment". SSCR (2011).
19. Kawahara, D., Inui, K., and Kurohashi, S. Identifying contradictory and contrastive relations between statements to outline web information on a given topic. In COLING (2010), 534-542.
20. Kelly, J. Parsing the online ecosystem: Journalism, media, and the blogosphere. In Transitioned Media. Springer New York, 2010, 93-108.
21. Laver, M., Benoit, K., and Garry, J. Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. APSR 97, 02 (2003), 311-331.
22. Lawrence, E., Sides, J., and Farrell, H. Self-Segregation or deliberation? blog readership, participation, and polarization in american politics. POP 8, 01 (2010), 141-157.
23. Lazer, D., Pentland, A. S., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A. L., Brewer, D., Christakis, N., Contractor, N., Fowler, J., Gutmann, M., et al. Life in the network: the coming age of computational social science. Science 323, 5915 (2009), 721.
24. Leskovec, J., Backstrom, L., and Kleinberg, J. Meme-tracking and the dynamics of the news cycle. In KDD (2009), 497-506.
25. Lui, C., Metaxas, P. T., and Mustafaraj, E. On the predictability of the us elections through search volume activity. In e-Society (2011).
26. Malouf, R., and Mullen, T. Taking sides: user classification for informal online political discourse. Internet Research 18 (2008), 177-190.
27. Murakami, K., Nichols, E., Mizuno, J., Watanabe, Y., Masuda, S., Goto, H., Ohki, M., Sao, C., Matsuyoshi, S., Inui, K., and Matsumoto, Y. Statement map: reducing web information credibility noise through opinion classification. In AND (2010), 59-66.
28. O'Connor, B., Balasubramanyan, R., Routledge, B. R., and Smith, N. A. From tweets to polls: Linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. In ICWSM (2010).
29. Pang, B., and Lee, L. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 2, 1-2 (2008), 1-135.
30. Paranjpe, D. Learning document aboutness from implicit user feedback and document structure. In CIKM (2009), 365-374.
31. Park, S., Ko, M., Kim, J., Liu, Y., and Song, J. The politics of comments: predicting political orientation of news stories with commenters' sentiment patterns. In CSCW (2011), 113-122.
32. Pennacchiotti, M., and Popescu, A.-M. Democrats, republicans and starbucks afficionados: user classification in twitter. In KDD (2011), 430-438.
33. Porter, M. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program 14, 3 (1980), 130-137.
34. Ripberger, J. T. Capturing curiosity: Using internet search trends to measure public attentiveness. PSJ 39, 2 (2011), 239-259.
35. Rogers, R. The end of the Virtual-Digital methods. Inaugural speech (2009).
36. Rosengren, E. Patterns in prevalence and debunking of three rumors online, 2011. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/85319.
37. Scheitle, C. P. Google's insights for search: A note evaluating the use of search engine data in social research. SSQ 92 (2011), 285-295.
38. Shen, D., Sun, J.-T., Yang, Q., and Chen, Z. Building bridges for web query classification. In SIGIR (2006), 131-138.
39. Slapin, J., and Proksch, S. A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. AJPS 52, 3 (2008), 705-722.
40. Subasic, I., and Castillo, C. The effects of query bursts on web search. In WI (2010), 374-381.
41. Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., Paltoglou, G. Cai, D., and Kappas, A. Sentiment strength detection in short informal text. JASIST 61 (2010), 2544-2558.
42. Thomas, M., Pang, B., and Lee, L. Get out the vote: Determining support or opposition from congressional floor-debate transcripts. In EMNLP (2006), 327-335.
43. Venturini, T. Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory. PUS (2010).
44. Venturini, T. Building on faults: how to represent controversies with digital methods. PUS (2012).
45. Weber, I., and Castillo, C. The demographics of web search. In SIGIR (2010), 523-530.
46. Weber, I., and Jaimes, A. Who uses web search for what: and how. In WSDM (2011), 15-24.
47. Weeks, B., and Southwell, B. The symbiosis of news coverage and aggregate online search behavior: Obama, rumors, and presidential politics. HMCS 13, 4 (2010), 341-360.
48. Yu, B., Kaufmann, S., and Diermeier, D. Exploring the characteristics of opinion expressions for political opinion classification. In dg.o (2008), 82-91.
49. Zhou, D. X., Resnick, P., and Mei, Q. Classifying the political leaning of news articles and users from user votes. In ICWSM (2011).