skip to main content
10.1145/3038912.3052647acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesthewebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Cascades: A View from Audience

Published: 03 April 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Cascades on social and information networks have been a tremendously popular subject of study in the past decade, and there is a considerable literature on phenomena such as diffusion mechanisms, virality, cascade prediction, and peer network effects. Against the backdrop of this research, a basic question has received comparatively little attention: how desirable are cascades on a social media platform from the point of view of users' While versions of this question have been considered from the perspective of the producers of cascades, any answer to this question must also take into account the effect of cascades on their audience --- the viewers of the cascade who do not directly participate in generating the content that launched it. In this work, we seek to fill this gap by providing a consumer perspective of information cascades.
Users on social and information networks play the dual role of producers and consumers, and our work focuses on how users perceive cascades as consumers. Starting from this perspective, we perform an empirical study of the interaction of Twitter users with retweet cascades. We measure how often users observe retweets in their home timeline, and observe a phenomenon that we term the Impressions Paradox: the share of impressions for cascades of size k decays much more slowly than frequency of cascades of size k. Thus, the audience for cascades can be quite large even for rare large cascades. We also measure audience engagement with retweet cascades in comparison to non-retweeted or organic content. Our results show that cascades often rival or exceed organic content in engagement received per impression. This result is perhaps surprising in that consumers didn't opt in to see tweets from these authors. Furthermore, although cascading content is widely popular, one would expect it to eventually reach parts of the audience that may not be interested in the content. Motivated by the tension in these empirical findings, we posit a simple theoretical model that focuses on the effect of cascades on the audience (rather than the cascade producers). Our results on this model highlight the balance between retweeting as a high-quality content selection mechanism and the role of network users in filtering irrelevant content. In particular, the results suggest that together these two effects enable the audience to consume a high quality stream of content in the presence of cascades.

References

[1]
L. A. Adamic and N. Glance. The political blogosphere and the 2004 us election: divided they blog. In International workshop on Link discovery. ACM, 2005.
[2]
R. Arratia and L. Goldstein. Size bias, sampling, the waiting time paradox, and infinite divisibility: when is the increment independent? Technical Report 1007.3910, arxiv.org, Oct. 2007.
[3]
E. Bakshy, S. Messing, and L. Adamic. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 5 2015.
[4]
L. Barone. Why twitter's new retweet feature sucks. http://outspokenmedia.com/social-media/twitters-new-retweet-feature-sucks/. 2009, Accessed: 2016-08-20.
[5]
J. Berger and K. L. Milkman. What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 2012.
[6]
R. Bosagh Zadeh, A. Goel, K. Munagala, and A. Sharma. On the precision of social and information networks. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Online social networks, pages 63--74. ACM, 2013.
[7]
J. Cheng, L. A. Adamic, P. A. Dow, J. M. Kleinberg, and J. Leskovec. Can cascades be predicted? In Proc. 23rd WWW, pages 925--936, 2014.
[8]
C. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, J. Cheng, J. Kleinberg, and L. Lee. You had me at hello: How phrasing affects memorability. In Proceedings of the ACL. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2012.
[9]
P. A. Dow, L. A. Adamic, and A. Friggeri. The anatomy of large facebook cascades. In ICWSM, 2013.
[10]
Facebook. News Feed FYI: helping make sure you Don't miss stories from friends. http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/06/news-feed-fyi-helping-make-sure-you-dont-miss- stories-from-friends/. Accessed: 2016-10-24.
[11]
A. Goel, K. Munagala, A. Sharma, and H. Zhang. A note on modeling retweet cascades on twitter. In International Workshop on Algorithms and Models for the Web-Graph, pages 119--131. Springer International Publishing, 2015.
[12]
S. Goel, A. Anderson, J. Hofman, and D. J. Watts. The structural virality of online diffusion. Management Science, 62(1):180--196, 2015.
[13]
S. Goel, A. Anderson, J. M. Hofman, and D. J. Watts. The structural virality of online diffusion. Management Science, 62(1):180--196, 2016.
[14]
J. Leskovec, L. Adamic, and B. Huberman. The dynamics of viral marketing. ACM Transactions on the Web, 2007.
[15]
Y.-R. R. Lin, D. Margolin, B. Keegan, A. Baronchelli, and D. Lazer.#bigbirds never die: Understanding social dynamics of emergent hashtag. In ICWSM, 3 2013.
[16]
S. K. Maity, R. Saraf, and A. Mukherjee.# bieber # blast=# bieberblast: Early prediction of popular hashtag compounds. In Proceedings of CSCW, 2016.
[17]
S. A. Myers, A. Sharma, P. Gupta, and J. Lin. Information network or social network?: the structure of the twitter follow graph. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, pages 493--498. ACM, 2014.
[18]
D. M. Romero, B. Meeder, and J. Kleinberg. Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: Idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on Twitter. In Proceedings of WWW, pages 695--704, 2011.
[19]
D. M. Romero, C. Tan, and J. Ugander. On the interplay between social and topical structure. In Proceedings of ICWSM, 2013.
[20]
S. M. Ross. Introduction to Probability Models, Ninth Edition. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL, USA, 2006.
[21]
O. Tsur and A. Rappoport. What's in a hashtag?: content based prediction of the spread of ideas in microblogging communities. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. ACM, 2012.
[22]
Twitter. While you were away... https://blog.twitter.com/2015/while-you-were-away-0. Accessed: 2016-10-24.
[23]
S. Wu, J. M. Hofman, W. A. Mason, and D. J. Watts. Who says what to whom on twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW '11, pages 705--714, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
WWW '17: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web
April 2017
1678 pages
ISBN:9781450349130

Sponsors

  • IW3C2: International World Wide Web Conference Committee

In-Cooperation

Publisher

International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland

Publication History

Published: 03 April 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. cascade models
  2. consumer
  3. twitter

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

WWW '17
Sponsor:
  • IW3C2

Acceptance Rates

WWW '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 164 of 966 submissions, 17%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 28 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media