Category Archives: Gadgets and Technology

Pew reminds us that Twitter users are not representative of the US population

Posted on by

In looking at this story, I was led to a recent Pew study that compared the political leanings of Twitter to the political opinions of the general US population. One takeaway: the two populations are not the same.

The lack of consistent correspondence between Twitter reaction and public opinion is partly a reflection of the fact that those who get news on Twitter – and particularly those who tweet news – are very different demographically from the public.

The overall reach of Twitter is modest. In the Pew Research Center’s 2012 biennial news consumption survey, just 13% of adults said they ever use Twitter or read Twitter messages; only 3% said they regularly or sometimes tweet or retweet news or news headlines on Twitter.

Twitter users are not representative of the public. Most notably, Twitter users are considerably younger than the general public and more likely to be Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party. In the 2012 news consumption survey, half (50%) of adults who said they posted news on Twitter were younger than 30, compared with 23% of all adults. And 57% of those who posted news on Twitter were either Democrats or leaned Democratic, compared with 46% of the general public. (Another recent Pew Research Center survey provides even more detail on who uses Twitter and other social media.)

In another respect, the Twitter audience also is broader than the sample of a traditional national survey. People under the age of 18 can participate in Twitter conversations, while national surveys are limited to adults 18 and older. Similarly, Twitter conversations also may include those living outside the United States.

Perhaps most important, the Twitter users who choose to share their views on events vary with the topics in the news. Those who tweeted about the California same-sex marriage ruling were likely not the same group as those who tweeted about Obama’s inaugural or Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan.

This leads to me to three thoughts:

1. What does this mean for the archiving of Twitter being undertaken by the Library of Congress? While it is still an interesting data source, Twitter provides a very small slice of U.S. opinion.

2. This is emblematic of larger issues with relying on new technologies to do research: who uses newer technologies is not the same as the U.S. population. This can be corrected for, as a recent article titled “A More Perfect Poll” suggests, and technologies can eventually filter throughout the whole U.S. population. In the meantime, researchers need to be careful about what they conclude.

3. So…what do we do about a comparison of a non-representative sample to a population? Pew seems to admit this:

While this provides an interesting look into how communities of interest respond to different circumstances, it does not reliably correlate with the overall reaction of adults nationwide.

This is an odd way to conclude a statistical report.

British grandparents believe their grandkids would rather get advice from Google

Posted on by

British grandparents thinks Google has replaced them as sources for advice:

Almost nine out of every 10 UK grandparents claimed their grandchildren failed to ask them for advice for simple tasks, instead turning to online channels such as Google, YouTube and Wikipedia for information.

Answers on how to boil an egg, iron a shirt and even details on their own family history are now easily found by younger generations glued to their smartphones, tablet computers or laptops, according to research commissioned by cleaning products firm Dr Beckmann.

“Grandparents believe they are being sidelined by Google, YouTube, Wikipedia and the huge resource of advice available on the internet,” spokeswoman Susan Fermor said in a statement…

The survey of 1,500 grandparents also found that children chose to research what life was like for their elderly relatives in their youth rather than asking the grandparents themselves, with just 33 percent of grandparents having been asked: ‘What was it like when you were young?’.

Almost two-thirds of grandparents felt their traditional roles were becoming less and less important in modern family life, with 96 percent claiming that they asked far more questions of their own grandparents when they were young.

I’m not sure how valid this survey is but assuming the results are good, I think the key is in the last paragraph of the story. It is isn’t necessarily the Internet or Google or another website that is causing trouble. These new technologies are part of a larger society that grandparents believe doesn’t have much room for them. On one hand, this may be a common complaint of grandparents: people in the newer generations aren’t paying enough attention to them. This could be backed up by 96% saying they were more likely to question their grandparents. On the other hand, perhaps this is evidence of significant shift away from learning from one’s elders and turning to digitized information sources. Why go through the trouble of asking a human being when you can just watch a YouTube video or type a sentence into Google? Either way, grandparents still have these perceptions.

Social network analysis: “The Friendster Autopsy”

Posted on by

A group of researchers has provided an autopsy of Friendster:

Friendster was once the hottest thing in social networking. Google wanted to buy it for $30 million back in 2003, but — burdened by technical glitches and a more nimble competitor in Facebook — it was pretty much dead in the U.S. by 2006. That said, it trudged along for a few more years, helped by a relatively strong following in southeast Asia. Then, around 2009, a site redesign crushed it…

What they found was that by 2009, Friendster still had tens of millions of users, but the bonds linking the network weren’t particularly strong. Many of the users weren’t connected to a lot of other members, and the people they had befriended came with just a handful of their own connections. So they ended up being so loosely affiliated with the network, that the burden of dealing with a new user interface just wasn’t worth it.

“First the users in the outer cores start to leave, lowering the benefits of inner cores, cascading through the network towards the core users, and thus unraveling,” Garcia told us during an online chat…

The researchers describe heart of successful networks in terms of what that they call K-cores. These are subset of users who not only have a lot of friends, but they have “resilience and social influence,” Garcia says. As these K-cores disintegrated, the whole Friendster thing fell apart.

This sounds like a classic social network analysis: are there enough strong bonds in a large network to keep it together? As they note, it is not just about the number of users involved but rather the relationships and interactions between key groups that have an outsized influence on the entire network.

I suspect Facebook (and other social network people) has some idea about this idea already. What I would want to hear about is how then Facebook helps keep these “k-cores” or hubs or key nodes together. Are the algorithms for news feeds geared toward these people or groups? How are things tweaked to help these k-cores grow and continue to have an outsized influence?

How the Library of Congress will archive and make available all tweets

Posted on by

The Library of Congress announced a few years ago they will archive all tweets. Here is how they plan to store the data and make it available:

Osterberg says the costs associated with the project, in terms of developing the infrastructure to house the tweets, is in the low tens of thousands of dollars. The tweets were offered as a free gift from Twitter, and are being transferred to the Library through a separate company, Gnip, at no cost. Each day tweets are automatically pulled in from Gnip, organized chronologically and scanned to ensure they’re not corrupted. Then the data are stored on two separate tapes which are housed in different parts of the Library for security reasons.

The Library has mostly figured out how to make the archive organized, but usability remains a challenge. A simple query of just the 2006-2010 tweets currently takes about 24 hours. Increasing search speeds to a reasonable level would require purchasing hundreds of servers, which the Library says is financially unfeasible right now. There’s no timetable for when the tweets might become accessible to researchers…

While you can’t yet make a trip to Washington D.C. and have casual perusal of all the world’s tweets, the technology to do exactly that is readily available—for a cost. Gnip, the organization feeding the tweets to the Library, is a social media data company that has exclusive access to the Twitter “firehose,” the never-ending, comprehensive stream of all of our tweets. Companies such as IBM pay for Gnip’s services, which also include access to posts from other social networks like Facebook and Tumblr. The company also works with academics and public policy experts, the type of people likely to make use of a free, government-sponsored Twitter archive when it comes to fruition…

All the researchers agree that Twitter is a powerful tool for sociological study. Soon, if the Library of Congress can make its database fully functional, it’ll also be an easily accessible one. And one day, long after we’ve all sent our final snarky tweet, our messages will live on.

And what will people of the future think when they read all these tweets?

While this could be a really interesting data source (notwithstanding all of the sample selection issues), I find it odd there is no timetable for when it might be more easily searchable. What is the point of collecting all of this information if it can’t be put to use?

Los Angeles “the first major city in the world to synchronize all of its traffic signals”

Posted on by

Los Angeles, famous for its roads and highways, is now leading the world in having all synchronized traffic lights.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was expected to flip the switch on Tuesday on a final traffic intersection system that will result in the synchronization of all of nearly 4,400 traffic signals in Los Angeles.

KNX 1070?s Pete Demetriou reports L.A. is about to become the first major city in the world to synchronize all of its traffic signals…

Officials said the completion of this project will increase travel speeds by 16 percent and reduces travel times by 12 percent…

Signal synchronization also dramatically reduces carbon emissions by 1 million metric tons a year due to less idling at intersections, according to officials.

Less congestion and greener? Sounds like a win-win.

It would be interesting to know the final costs and logistics involved from the full project. The article suggests this project was part of the planning for the 1984 Summer Olympics but was not completed until this week. If this is such a great benefit for the city, what is stopping other cities from doing the same thing?

Zappos CEO says office space should be designed like cities

Posted on by

Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh argues office space would work better if it were organized like cities:

Tony Hsieh talks about his Internet juggernaut Zappos in the same way that urban planners talk about cities. In fact, the language is uncanny. He believes the best ideas – and the best form of productivity – come from “collisions,” from employees caroming ideas off one another in the serendipity of constant casual contact.

This is only achievable through density, with desks pushed close together in the office, or – in the case of Hsieh’s ambitious plans to leverage the new Zappos headquarters to remake downtown Las Vegas – with company employees and community members colliding into each other on the street. For the kind of “collisionable” density he’s looking for in downtown Vegas around his company, he figures the neglected area (not to be confused with the Vegas Strip) needs at least 100 residents per acre…

The typical office has about 200 or 300 square feet of space per employee. When Zappos moves into its new headquarters in the former Las Vegas City Hall in about six months, Hsieh is aiming for something closer to 100 square feet per employee. He’s also planning to decommission a skywalk into the building to force people to enter through (and collide with) the street.

In the context of offices, this kind of density bucks conventional wisdom. Most companies think employees will perform best, or at least be happiest, if as many of them as possible can have their own spacious corner office (with closable door!). This thinking has even influenced the architecture of office towers.

“That’s analogous to people wanting to live in the suburbs and live in a big house,” Hsieh says. “And what they don’t realize is that they end up trading two hours of commute time for more time with friends or relaxing or whatever.”

Interesting comparisons: corner offices are like suburbs. While Hsieh cites research, how come other companies haven’t figured this out yet? I also wonder if this is more about corporate cultures established in more traditional firms versus newer startups or high-tech firms. This reminds of a video I show in my Introduction to Sociology class to illustrate the differences between more bureaucratic structures and more flat, disc-shaped structures. In the clip from Nightline, the design firm IDEO is shown working through designing a new shopping cart. The atmosphere is both less hierarchical in terms of authority and space; people seem to be closer together and common collaborative space is important.

This conversation also lines up with talk on college campuses about interdisciplinary research and collaborative activity. Just how much can redesigned offices and common spaces contribute to this? Are we missing something major by building office buildings more like suburbs than cities?

The “extreme architecture” of “a drone-proof city”

Posted on by

With the recent talk about drone use, here is an interesting thought exercise: how to best build a city that limits the reach of drones?

Kohn’s envisioned drone-proof community, which he calls “Shura City,” is a thought experiment, a provocation (shura, Arabic for consultation, is a word associated with group decision-making in the Islamic world). It’s a self-contained environment with elaborate architectural devices designed to thwart robotic predators overhead. Minarets, along with the wind-catching cooling towers called badgirs, would obstruct the flight path of the drones. A latticed roof, extending over the entire community, would create shade patterns to make visual target identification difficult. A fully climate-controlled environment would confuse heat-seeking detection systems. He has not included any anti-aircraft weapons in this scenario…

Kohn writes in his proposal that he envisions Shura City as a brick-and-mortar response to a 21st-century conundrum, a world in which war is ill-defined and combatants on both sides live in an extrajudicial limbo…

Kohn says that he thinks it is a duty for his generation to challenge the newly mechanized means of warfare that have become routine over the last 10 years. “If people are going to create new and exciting ways to kill people, I think there’s no harm in pushing the envelope of peace technology,” he says. Imagining Shura City is part of Kohn’s personal response to that challenge, a way to hack the machines of modern war.

“There is a deliberate impudence to the City,” he wrote to me. “Drones rely on data mining of individuals and tracking of individuals, kind of like Facebook. The City hides the individual in the embrace of the community, using human traits drones cannot understand as protection. The City subverts the aggressor.”

Peace architecture vs. war architecture. Cities with the ability to hide people vs. the ability of drones to find people. There are some interesting contrasts here. Many urban sociologists like to promote public spaces where people of all backgrounds and circumstances can share physical settings (see the example of The Cosmopolitan Canopy by Elijah Anderson). But what happens if the public spaces that perhaps mark democratic society are places citizens are afraid of being spotted from above? Can cities more closed to above still be open in the sense that we think of them?

While this particular example may be far-fetched, it wouldn’t surprise me if some cities around the cities attempt to limit the effectiveness of drones.

Pew finds majority of Americans taking breaks from Facebook

Posted on by

Facebook may be near ubiquitous in the United States but Pew finds that a majority of users take breaks from the site:

New research suggests that Facebook fatigue may be setting in with some users. Twenty-seven percent of Facebook users surveyed in the U.S. plan to spend less time on the site in 2013, compared with only 3% who plan to spend more time, according to a study from the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.

(Another 69% of Facebook users say they plan to spend the same amount of time on the site this coming year.)

The Pew study also found that 61% of Facebook users have taken a break from the service for several weeks or more. During these breaks, the vast majority of Facebook vacationers don’t delete their profiles…

The reasons people gave for taking a sabbatical from the network were varied. The most common motivation was not having enough time for the site, with 21% of people saying they were just too busy with real-life responsibilities to spend time reading posts, liking and commenting.

Other reasons for leaving: Ten percent called it a waste of time, 10% cited a lack of interest in the content, and 9% said they were unhappy with the amount of drama and gossip on the site. Only 4% of people mentioned privacy and security concerns as their reason for taking a breather.

These findings could counter a common narrative about Facebook use that is based in some real trends. It suggests Facebook users and Internet users in general spend way too much time online, can’t get away from it, and end up in weird and possibly harmful situations (see: Manti Te’o story). The suggestion is that users don’t realize the possibly harmful effects of being on Facebook. These findings counter this narrative: a majority of users do try to get away from it at times. They are not unaware of what is going on and try to get some distance from it.

On the other hand, I don’t think this is necessarily bad news for Facebook. This could simply be a plateauing of a sharp upward rise for Facebook that was untenable over the long haul. In other words, perhaps people simply can’t maintain the amount of time they spend with Facebook or realize they don’t want to. Some people just joined because others have joined. Yet, these findings suggest that people aren’t leaving Facebook altogether even as they take some short breaks. They are trying to find ways to balance their lives with Facebook and still want to participate, even on a reduced basis.

So how much might Facebook do to try to reduce these breaks and have people participating consistently?

San Francisco leads US cities in terms of official tourism Twitter accounts

Posted on by

While New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago may lead in terms of population and prestige, San Francisco is the leader in a more modern category: official tourism Twitter account followers.

What’s your favorite city to follow on Twitter? If you chose San Francisco (@onlyinsf), you’re one of the 99,000-plus followers that made it No. 1 among the 10 most popular U.S. cities on Twitter.

New York City (@nycgo) and Las Vegas (@vegas) come in second and third while Los Angeles (@discoverLA) takes eighth place. Cities were ranked by the number of people following their official tourism Twitter accounts, not city government or other Twitter feeds.

The rest of the top 10 cities:

4. Miami (@miamiandbeaches)
5. Philadelphia (@visitphilly)
6. Chicago (@choosechicago)
7. Portland, Ore. (@travelportland)
9. Columbia, S.C. (@columbiasc)
10. Louisville, Ky. (@justaddbourbon)

The report from Skift, a newish New York company that produces travel information and news, looked at how tourism agencies use social media. During a two-week period, it found that Portland and Philadelphia were most responsive to answering questions via Twitter, and that New York City, Las Vegas and Portland had the quickest average response times to their tweets.

Does Louisville get a prize for having the most clever Twitter handle of the top 10? I want to know several things about these Twitter accounts:

1. How does the number of Twitter followers translate into tourism dollars? Tourism is big business for all of these cities so they have an interest in having engaging Twitter accounts.

2. Are most of these followers looking for special deals? Do they tend to follow the city when they already have a trip planned?

3. This doesn’t necessarily line up with one recent measure of the leading American cities for tourists. According to 2009 data listed by Forbes, here are the top tourist cities:

Orlando, Fla.: 48 million visitors
New York City: 47 million visitors
Chicago, Ill.: 45,580,000 visitors
Anaheim/Orange County, Calif.: 42,700,000 visitors
Miami, Fla: 38,100,000 visitors
Las Vegas, Nev.: 36,351,469 visitors
Atlanta, Ga.: 35,400,000 visitors
Houston, Texas: 31,060,000 visitors
Philadelphia, Pa.: 30,320,000 visitors
San Diego, California: 29,600,000 visitors

This data plus the Twitter data could be interpreted in a few ways. One way to view it is that some cities don’t need much of a Twitter following. For example, I assume Orlando and Anaheim get so many visitors due to the Disney presence. Thus, these visitors care a lot less about the cities (are there many people looking to get to downtown Orlando or Anaheim?).

4. Any chance these Twitter accounts take advantage of fake followers to improve their image? Boosterism may know few bounds…

Mapping NFL fandom by county with Facebook likes

Posted on by

Facebook has put their massive data trove to use and examined the geographies of NFL fandom. Here is what they came up with:

The National Football League is one of the most popular sports in America with some incredibly devoted fans. At Facebook we have about 35 million account holders in the United States who have Liked a page for one of the 32 teams in the league, representing one of the most comprehensive samples of sports fanship ever collected. Put another way, more than 1 in 10 Americans have declared their support for an NFL team on Facebook…

While winning seems to matter, NFL teams have local followings that are probably heavily influenced by family ties and/or where a person grew up,  so we were obviously curious to see where the fans for various teams live now. By considering the physical locations of NFL fans, we can construct a map of the top team for each county in the US. It tells an interesting story about the ways that football rivalries and allegiances alternately divide and unite the country, and sometimes even individual states.

In some cases, whole states and even entire regions of the country uniformly support a single team.  For instance the Vikings are easily the only game in town in Minnesota, while New England appears to be comprised of entirely Patriots fans except for a small portion of Connecticut.

There are some states which are divided into regions by teams.  Florida has three teams–the Tampa Bay Bucs, Miami Dolphins, and the Jacksonville Jaguars–and Facebook users there seems fractured in their support, with some counties even defecting to teams from the North. Ohio is another interesting story, with the Cleveland Browns in the North, Cincinatti Bengals in the South, and Pittsburgh Steelers fans occupying the middle of the state.

Some teams, like the Steelers, Cowboys, and Packers, seem to transcend geography, with pockets of fans all over the country. On the other end of the spectrum, the Jets have to share New York with the Giants and are only the most popular team for a single stronghold county in Long Island.

Five quick thoughts:

1. There are few other organizations that could put together such a map without undertaking a major survey (since this is measured at the county level).

2. The best part for Facebook: users voluntarily provided this data.

3. Could Facebook end up being the most important future source for telling us about American society? There are still difficulties: users have to opt in (in this particular case, they had to “like” a NFL team), not everyone is involved (though it seems like pretty close), and not all users are putting everything in their profiles.

4. Is there a way to weight this map with population density? For example, the Cowboys may have a really broad geographic reach but many of those counties have fewer people. In contrast, teams like the Jets or Eagles have smaller reaches yet more people live in those areas.

5. Is there a way to show the percentage of county respondents who liked the dominant team? I imagine there are plenty of counties where one team does not have a strong majority, let alone even much of a plurality. For example, Jets fans barely show up on the map because they are only the top team in one county. Yet, there are plenty of Jets fans.