skip to main content
10.1145/2556195.2566588acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswsdmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Who watches (and shares) what on youtube? and when?: using twitter to understand youtube viewership

Published:24 February 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

By combining multiple social media datasets, it is possible to gain insight into each dataset that goes beyond what could be obtained with either individually. In this paper we combine user-centric data from Twitter with video-centric data from YouTube to build a rich picture of who watches and shares what on YouTube. We study 87K Twitter users, 5.6 million YouTube videos and 15 million video sharing events from user-, video- and sharing-event-centric perspectives. We show that features of Twitter users correlate with YouTube features and sharing-related features. For example, urban users are quicker to share than rural users. We find a superlinear relationship between initial Twitter shares and the final amounts of views. We discover that Twitter activity metrics play more role in video popularity than mere amount of followers. We also reveal the existence of correlated behavior concerning the time between video creation and sharing within certain timescales, showing the time onset for a coherent response, and the time limit after which collective responses are extremely unlikely. Response times depend on the category of the video, suggesting Twitter video sharing is highly dependent on the video content. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large-scale study combining YouTube and Twitter data, and it reveals novel, detailed insights into who watches (and shares) what on YouTube, and when.

References

  1. F. Al Zamal, W. Liu, and D. Ruths. Homophily and latent attribute inference: Inferring latent attributes of twitter users from neighbors. In ICWSM, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. S. Asur, B. A. Huberman, G. Szabo, and C. Wang. Trends in Social Media: Persistence and Decay. In ICWSM, pages 434--437, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. A.-L. Barabasi. The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics. Nature, 435:207, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. P. Barbera. Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together. Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data, 2012. Forthcoming.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. S. Bostandjiev, J. O'Donovan, and T. Höllerer. Tasteweights: A visual interactive hybrid recommender system. In RecSys, pages 35--42, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M. Cha, H. Haddadi, F. Benevenuto, and P. K. Gummadi. Measuring user influence in twitter: The million follower fallacy. In ICWSM, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. M. Conover, J. Ratkiewicz, M. Francisco, B. Gonçalves, F. Menczer, and A. Flammini. Political polarization on twitter. In ICWSM, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M. D. Conover, B. Gonc, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer. Partisan Asymmetries in Online Political Activity. EPJ DataScience, 1(6):1--17, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. D. Conover, B. Goncalves, J. Ratkiewicz, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer. Predicting the Political Alignment of Twitter Users. In PASSAT-SocialCom, pages 192--199, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. R. Crane, F. Schweitzer, and D. Sornette. Power law signature of media exposure in human response waiting time distributions. Physical Review E, 81(5):056101, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. R. Crane and D. Sornette. Robust dynamic classes revealed by measuring the response function of a social system. PNAS, 105(41):15649--15653, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. F. Figueiredo, F. Benevenuto, and J. M. Almeida. The tube over time: Characterizing popularity growth of youtube videos. In WSDM, pages 745--754, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D. Garcia, P. Mavrodiev, and F. Schweitzer. Social resilience in online communities: The autopsy of friendster. 1st ACM Conference on Online Social Networks (Forthcoming), 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. D. Garcia, F. Mendez, U. Serdült, and F. Schweitzer. Political polarization and popularity in online participatory media. In PLEAD, pages 3--10, Nov. 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Gayo-Avello. Nepotistic relationships in twitter and their impact on rank prestige algorithms. Inf. Process. Manage., 49(6):1250--1280, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. S. Goel, J. M. Hofman, and M. I. Sirer. Who does what on the web: A large-scale study of browsing behavior. In ICWSM, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. P. I. Good. Permutation, Parametric, and Bootstrap Tests of Hypotheses. Springer, 3 edition, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. S. Havlin. The distance between zipf plots. Physica A Statistical and Theoretical Physics, 216(1-2):148--150, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. S. R. Kairam, M. R. Morris, J. Teevan, D. J. Liebling, and S. T. Dumais. Towards supporting search over trending events with social media. In ICWSM, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Karsai, K. Kaski, A.-L. Barabási, and J. Kertész. Universal features of correlated bursty behaviour, May 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. G. Karypis. Cluto: A clustering toolkit, 2002. http://www.cs.umn.edu/~cluto.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J. Kulshrestha, F. Kooti, A. Nikravesh, and P. K. Gummadi.Geographic dissection of the twitter network. In ICWSM, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. S. S. Laine and G. Ercal. User Groups in Social Networks: An Experimental Study on YouTube. In 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pages 1--10, Jan. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J. Lehmann, B. Gonçalves, J. J. Ramasco, and C. Cattuto. Dynamical classes of collective attention in twitter. In WWW, page 251, New York, New York, USA, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Q. V. Liao, C. Wagner, P. Pirolli, and W.-T. Fu. Understanding experts' and novices' expertise judgment of twitter users. In CHI, pages 2461--2464, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. Mislove, S. Lehmann, Y.-y. Ahn, J.-p. Onnela, and J. N. Rosenquist. Understanding the demographics of twitter users. In ICWSM, pages 554--557, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. M. Pennacchiotti and A.-M. Popescu. Democrats, republicans and starbucks afficionados: User classification in twitter. In KDD, pages 430--438, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. H. Pinto, J. M. Almeida, and M. A. Gonçalves. Using early view patterns to predict the popularity of youtube videos. In WSDM, pages 365--374, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. L. Qiu, Q. Tang, and A. B. Whinston. Two formulas for success in social media: Social learning and network effects, 2013. Forthcoming.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. D. Soysa, D. Chen, O. Au, and A. Bermak. Predicting youtube content popularity via facebook data: A network spread model for optimizing multimedia delivery. In CIDM, pages 214--221, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. G. Szabo and B. A. Huberman. Predicting the popularity of online content. Communications of the ACM, 53(8):80, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. J. Teevan, D. Ramage, and M. R. Morris. #twittersearch: A comparison of microblog search and web search. In WSDM, pages 35--44, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. A. Ulges, D. Borth, and M. Koch. Content analysis meets viewers: linking concept detection with demographics on youtube. IJMIR, 2(2):145--157, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. C. Wang and B. A. Huberman. Long trend dynamics in social media. EPJ Data Science, page 8, May 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. I. Weber, V. R. K. Garimella, and E. Borra. Political search trends. In SIGIR, pages 1012--1012. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. I. Weber, V. R. K. Garimella, and E. Borra. Inferring audience partisanship for youtube videos. In WWW, pages 43--44, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. I. Weber, V. R. K. Garimella, and A. Teka. Political hashtag trends. In ECIR, pages 857--860, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. I. Weber and A. Jaimes. Who uses web search for what: and how. In WSDM, pages 15--24, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Y. Wu, C. Zhou, J. Xiao, J. Kurths, and H. J. Schellnhuber. Evidence for a bimodal distribution in human communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(44):18803--18808, Oct. 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Who watches (and shares) what on youtube? and when?: using twitter to understand youtube viewership

      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
        WSDM '14: Proceedings of the 7th ACM international conference on Web search and data mining
        February 2014
        712 pages
        ISBN:9781450323512
        DOI:10.1145/2556195

        Copyright © 2014 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 the author(s) 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: 24 February 2014

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        WSDM '14 Paper Acceptance Rate64of355submissions,18%Overall Acceptance Rate498of2,863submissions,17%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader