W HO G IVES A T WEET ? Evaluating Microblog Content Value

1. WHO GIVES A TWEET? Evaluating Microblog Content Value Carnegie Mellon & Uni. Southampton MIT CSAIL Georgia Institute of Technology Paul André @paulesque Michael Bernstein Kurt Luther

7. ?

8. What content is valued, and why? ?

9. What content is valued, and why? 1. design implications 2. emerging norms and practice ?

10. Who Gives a Tweet? anonymous feedback from followers and strangers (analysis of follower ratings only) DESIGN

11. Who Gives a Tweet? anonymous feedback from followers and strangers rate tweets(provide us data) receive value in return (ratings from followers) anticipated reciprocity DESIGN

12. wgat_user: username: DESIGN

13. RECRUITMENT

14. RECRUITMENT

15. RECRUITMENT

16. 1,443 users rated 43,738 tweets from 21,014 Twitter accounts

17. 36%Worth Reading 39% Neutral 25%Not Worth Reading 41% Worth Reading entire dataset average user RESULTS

18. What content is valued, and why?

19. What content is valued, and why? 1. categories 2. reasons why

20. What content is valued, and why? more Information Sharing (49% vs 22%) less Me Now (10% vs 40%) + inclusion of organizations compared to random sample in Naaman (2010) Category labels 4,220 tweets Ground truth + CrowdFlower Cohen’s Kappa: 0.62

21. RESULTS:Categories

22. RESULTS:Categories “gud morning twits” 20% liked 45% disliked

23. RESULTS:Categories “gud morning twits” 20% liked 45% disliked *p<.01 ˘trend p=.05

24. RESULTS:Categories “What'd they say?? @adam807 Dreamed I went to an @waitwait taping and they had to stop because a guest made @petersagal cry.” 24% liked 34% disliked *p<.01 ˘trend p=.05

25. RESULTS:Categories “tired and upset” 27% liked 25% disliked *p<.01 ˘trend p=.05

26. RESULTS:Categories *p<.01 ˘trend p=.05

27. RESULTS:Categories *p<.01 ˘trend p=.05

28. RESULTS:Categories *p<.01 ˘trend p=.05

29. Not Worth Reading RESULTS:Reasons

30. Not Worth Reading Old News “Yes, I saw that first thing this morning.” “Since your followers read the NYT too, reposting NYT URLs is tricky unless you add something.” No Personal Touch “Twitter’s fault; feels like listening in on a private conversation” Conversations RESULTS:Reasons

31. Not Worth Reading Banal or Prosaic Tweets “…and so what?” “Just links are the worst thing in the world.” Lack of Context Professional vs Personal Insight “I unfollowed you for this tweet. I don’t know you; I followed you b/c of you job.” No Curiosity “All the news I need is here. Not much of a tease.” RESULTS:Reasons

32. WorthReading RESULTS:Reasons

33. Worth Reading Valued Information “interesting perspective on something I know nothing about.” “makes you want to know more.” Appealing Description “few words to say much, very clear.” Conciseness “personal, honest, and transparent.” Human RESULTS:Reasons

34. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Embed more context in tweets (be less cryptic) Add extra commentary, especially if RTing Use twitter-specific mechanisms (hashtags, @mentions, and DMs) appropriately Unique hashtag for questions is valued Conciseness, even with 140 chars, valued Happy sentiments valued; whining disliked

35. LIMITATIONS Exploringdifferent communitieson Twitter Which results generalize Rate author, not tweet Users no longer followed Self-ratings Twitter as maintaining awareness and relationships FUTURE WORK

36. DISCUSSION Presentation: Twitter’s simplicity vs. Facebook’s newsfeed complexity Utilizing results: Technological intervention:design tools to learn, filter, re-present Social intervention:inform users of perceived value and reaction

37. Social media sites: new connection opportunities but also new questions of content value and accepted practice Design sites to elicit more subtle reactions Sample of 1,400 users and 43,000 ratings: 41% of feed worth reading Information Sharing liked / Me Now disliked Reasons: context, commentary, conciseness, … Technological and social interventions CONCLUSIONS

38. Social media sites: new connection opportunities but also new questions of content value and accepted practice Design sites to elicit more subtle reactions Sample of 1,400 users and 43,000 ratings: 41% of feed worth reading Information Sharing liked / Me Now disliked Reasons: context, commentary, conciseness, … Technological and social interventions Thanks for listening! with thanks to Ed Cutrell, Robert Kraut, m.c. schraefel, Ryen White, SaritaYardi, HCII Social Comp. group and anonymous reviewers CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS Paul André – CMU HCII Michael Bernstein – MIT CSAIL Kurt Luther – Georgia Tech GVU

39. RESULTS Categories

40. RESULTS Categories 47% chance of being Worth Reading “This is a good use of Twitter.” “Gives one pause to think about the question posted.” Question to Followers Information Sharing Self-Promotion Random Thought Opinion / Complaint Me Now Conversation Presence Maintenance Questions to Followers

41. RESULTS Categories Question to Followers Information Sharing Self-Promotion Random Thought Opinion / Complaint Me Now Conversation Presence Maintenance Information Sharing “The headline arouses my curiosity.” “Wow. Didn’t know that was happening. Thanks for informing me.”

42. RESULTS Categories Question to Followers Information Sharing Self-Promotion Random Thought Opinion / Complaint Me Now Conversation Presence Maintenance 22% chance of being Worth Reading “Sorry, but I don’t care what people are eating.” “Too much personal info.” “He moans about this ALL THE TIME. Seriously.” Me Now

43. RESULTS Categories Question to Followers Information Sharing Self-Promotion Random Thought Opinion / Complaint Me Now Conversation Presence Maintenance “Foursquare updates don’t need to be shared on Twitter unless there’s a relevant update to be made.” “4sq, ffs.” Me Now

44. RECRUITMENT