skip to main content
10.1145/3121050.3121077acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesictirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Characterizing and Predicting Supply-side Engagement on Video Sharing Platforms Using a Hawkes Process Model

Published:01 October 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Video sharing platforms are one of the most popular and engaging platforms on the Internet today. Despite the increasing levels of user activity on these video platforms, current research on digital platforms have largely focused on social media and networking websites like Facebook and Twitter. We depart from previous work that have focused primarily on user demands (i.e. activity of viewers), and instead focus our attention to the supply-side activities on the platform (i.e. activity of video uploaders). We perform a large-scale empirical study by leveraging longitudinal video upload data from a major online video platform, demonstrating (i) heterogeneity of video types (e.g. presence of popular vs. niche genres), and (ii) inherent seasonality effects associated with video uploads. Through our analyses, we uncover a set of informative genre-clusters and estimate a self-exciting Hawkes point-process model on each of these clusters, to fully specify and estimate the video upload process. Additionally, we disentangle potential factors that govern user engagement and determine the video upload rates, which help supplement our analysis with additional explanatory power. Our results emphasize that using a parsimonious and relatively simple point-process model, we were able to obtain a high model fit, as well as perform prediction of video upload volumes with a higher accuracy than a number of competing models. The findings from this study can benefit platform owners in better understanding how their supply-side users engage with their site over time. We also offer a robust method for performing media upload prediction that is likely to be generalizable across media platforms which demonstrate similar temporal and genre-level heterogeneity.

References

  1. Sitaram Asur and Bernardo A Huberman. Predicting the future with social media. In WI-IAT 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Simon Attfield, Gabriella Kazai, Mounia Lalmas, and Benjamin Piwowarski 2011. Towards a science of user engagement (position paper) WSDM workshop on user modelling for Web applications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Kenneth P Burnham and David R Anderson 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Meeyoung Cha, Haewoon Kwak, Pablo Rodriguez, Yong-Yeol Ahn, and Sue Moon 2007. I tube, you tube, everybody tubes: analyzing the world's largest user generated content video system. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Pradeep K Chintagunta, Shyam Gopinath, and Sriram Venkataraman 2010. The effects of online user reviews on movie box office performance: Accounting for sequential rollout and aggregation across local markets. Marketing Science, Vol. 29, 5 (2010), 944--957.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Yoon-Sik Cho, Greg Ver Steeg, and Aram Galstyan. Where and Why Users "Check In". In AAAI 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Yoon-Sik Cho, Greg Ver Steeg, and Aram Galstyan. 2014. Where and Why Users "Check In". (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Alexey Drutsa, Anna Ufliand, and Gleb Gusev. 2015. Practical Aspects of Sensitivity in Online Experimentation with User Engagement Metrics Proceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 763--772. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Flavio Figueiredo. On the prediction of popularity of trends and hits for user generated videos WSDM 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Vladimir Filimonov and Didier Sornette 2013. Apparent criticality and calibration issues in the Hawkes self-excited point process model: application to high-frequency financial data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.6756 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Paulo B Goes, Mingfeng Lin, and Ching-man Au Yeung. 2014. "Popularity Effect" in User-Generated Content: Evidence from Online Product Reviews. Information Systems Research (2014). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Khim-Yong Goh, Cheng-Suang Heng, and Zhijie Lin 2013. Social media brand community and consumer behavior: Quantifying the relative impact of user-and marketer-generated content. Information Systems Research Vol. 24, 1 (2013), 88--107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Alan G Hawkes. 1971. Spectra of some self-exciting and mutually exciting point processes. Biometrika (1971).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jin Young Kim and Emine Yilmaz. IR Evaluation: Designing an End-to-End Offline Evaluation Pipeline SIGIR 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ravi Kumar, Jasmine Novak, and Andrew Tomkins. 2010. Structure and evolution of online social networks. Link mining: models, algorithms, and applications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Janette Lehmann, Mounia Lalmas, Georges Dupret, and Ricardo Baeza-Yates. Online multitasking and user engagement. In CIKM 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Janette Lehmann, Mounia Lalmas, Elad Yom-Tov, and Georges Dupret 2012. Models of user engagement. User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization. Springer, 164--175. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jure Leskovec, Lars Backstrom, and Jon Kleinberg. 2009. Meme-tracking and the dynamics of the news cycle. Proceedings of KDD 2009. ACM, 497--506. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Jure Leskovec, Lars Backstrom, Ravi Kumar, and Andrew Tomkins. Microscopic evolution of social networks. In KDD 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Jure Leskovec and Eric Horvitz. Planetary-scale views on a large instant-messaging network WWW 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Xueming Luo, Jie Zhang, and Wenjing Duan. 2013. Social media and firm equity value. Information Systems Research (2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Antoine Mazières, Mathieu Trachman, Jean-Philippe Cointet, Baptiste Coulmont, and Christophe Prieur 2014. Deep tags: toward a quantitative analysis of online pornography. Porn Studies, Vol. 1, 1--2 (2014), 80--95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Takis Metaxas and Eni Mustafaraj. 2012. Social media and the elections. (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Brendan O'Connor, Ramnath Balasubramanyan, Bryan R Routledge, and Noah A Smith. 2010. From tweets to polls: Linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. ICWSM (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Yosihiko Ogata. 1988. Statistical models for earthquake occurrences and residual analysis for point processes. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1988).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Roger D Peng. 2002. Multi-dimensional point process models in R. Department of Statistics, UCLA (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Roger Dean Peng. 2003. Applications of multi-dimensional point process methodology to wildfire hazard assessment. Ph.D. Dissertation. UCLA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Patricia Reynaud-Bouret, Christine Tuleau-Malot, Vincent Rivoirard, and Franck Grammont. 2013. Spike trains as (in) homogeneous Poisson processes or Hawkes processes: non-parametric adaptive estimation and goodness-of-fit tests. Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Huaxia Rui and Andrew Whinston 2011. Designing a social-broadcasting-based business intelligence system. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS), Vol. 2, 4 (2011), 22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Olivier Toubia and Andrew T Stephen. 2013. Intrinsic vs. image-related utility in social media: Why do people contribute content to twitter? Marketing Science (2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Ryen W White, Ashish Kapoor, and Susan T Dumais. 2010. Modeling Long-Term Search Engine Usage. In UMAP. Springer, 28--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Zhiheng Xu, Yang Zhang, Yao Wu, and Qing Yang. 2012. Modeling user posting behavior on social media. In Proceedings of SIGIR. ACM, 545--554. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Characterizing and Predicting Supply-side Engagement on Video Sharing Platforms Using a Hawkes Process Model

    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
      ICTIR '17: Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval
      October 2017
      348 pages
      ISBN:9781450344906
      DOI:10.1145/3121050

      Copyright © 2017 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: 1 October 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      ICTIR '17 Paper Acceptance Rate27of54submissions,50%Overall Acceptance Rate209of482submissions,43%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader