skip to main content
10.1145/2145204.2145277acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Who gives a tweet?: evaluating microblog content value

Authors Info & Claims
Published:11 February 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

While microblog readers have a wide variety of reactions to the content they see, studies have tended to focus on extremes such as retweeting and unfollowing. To understand the broad continuum of reactions in-between, which are typically not shared publicly, we designed a website that collected the first large corpus of follower ratings on Twitter updates. Using our dataset of over 43,000 voluntary ratings, we find that nearly 36% of the rated tweets are worth reading, 25% are not, and 39% are middling. These results suggest that users tolerate a large amount of less-desired content in their feeds. We find that users value information sharing and random thoughts above me-oriented or presence updates. We also offer insight into evolving social norms, such as lack of context and misuse of @mentions and hashtags. We discuss implications for emerging practice and tool design.

References

  1. Barash, V., Duchenaut, N., Isaacs, E. & Bellotti, V. Faceplant: Impression (Mis)management in Facebook Status Updates. Proc. ICWSM 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Counts, S., & Fisher, K. Taking It All In? Visual Attention in Microblog Consumption. Proc. ICWSM 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ehrlich, K. & Shami, S. Microblogging Inside and Outside the Workplace. Proc. ICWSM 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Hurlock, J., & Wilson, M. L. Searching Twitter: Separating the Tweet from the Chaff. Proc. ICWSM 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Kwak, H., Chun, H. & Moon, S. Fragile online relationship: a first look at unfollow dynamics in twitter. Proc. CHI 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. What is Twitter, a Social Network or a News Media? Proc. WWW 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Marwick, A. E. & boyd., d. Twitter Users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 13(1), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Miller, V. New Media, Networking and Phatic Culture. Convergence 2008, 14:387.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Naaman, M., Boase, J. & Lai, C. Is it really about me? Message Content in Social Awareness Streams. CSCW 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Suh, B., Hong, L., Pirolli, P. & Chi, E. H. Want to be Retweeted? Large Scale Analytics on Factors Impacting Retweet in Twitter Network. Proc. SocialCom 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Who gives a tweet?: evaluating microblog content value

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CSCW '12: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
      February 2012
      1460 pages
      ISBN:9781450310864
      DOI:10.1145/2145204

      Copyright © 2012 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 11 February 2012

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CSCW '12 Paper Acceptance Rate164of415submissions,40%Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CSCW '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader