skip to main content
10.1145/1978942.1978976acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Tweets from Justin Bieber's heart: the dynamics of the location field in user profiles

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 May 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Little research exists on one of the most common, oldest, and most utilized forms of online social geographic information: the 'location' field found in most virtual community user profiles. We performed the first in-depth study of user behavior with regard to the location field in Twitter user profiles. We found that 34% of users did not provide real location information, frequently incorporating fake locations or sarcastic comments that can fool traditional geographic information tools. When users did input their location, they almost never specified it at a scale any more detailed than their city. In order to determine whether or not natural user behaviors have a real effect on the 'locatability' of users, we performed a simple machine learning experiment to determine whether we can identify a user's location by only looking at what that user tweets. We found that a user's country and state can in fact be determined easily with decent accuracy, indicating that users implicitly reveal location information, with or without realizing it. Implications for location-based services and privacy are discussed.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

1978976.mp4

mp4

101.3 MB

References

  1. Backstrom, L., Sun, E. and Marlow, C. Find Me If You Can: Improving Geographical Prediction with Social and Spatial Proximity. WWW '10, Raleigh, NC. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Barkhuus, L., Brown, B., Bell, M., Hall, M., Sherwood, S. and Chalmers, M. From Awareness to Repartee: Sharing Location within Social Groups. CHI '08, Florence, Italy, 497--506. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. boyd, d., Golder, S. and Lotan, G. Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter. HICSS '10, Kauai, HI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Miller, C. and Wortham, J. Technology Aside, Most People Still Decline to Be Located. The New York Times. August 30, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Fellman, J.D., Getis, A. and Getis, J. Human Geography: Landscapes of Human Activities. Mcgraw- Hill Higher Education, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Gabrilovich, E. and Markovitch, S. Computing Semantic Relatedness using Wikipedia-based Explicit Semantic Analysis. IJCAI '07, Hyberabad, 1606--1611. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Hecht, B. and Gergle, D. A Beginner's Guide to Geographic Virtual Communities Research. Handbook of Research on Methods and Techniques for Studying Virtual Communities, IGI, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Hecht, B. and Gergle, D. On The "Localness" Of User- Generated Content. CSCW '10, Savannah, Georgia. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Hecht, B. and Moxley, E. Terabytes of Tobler: Evaluating the First Law in a Massive, Domain-Neutral Representation of World Knowledge. COSIT '09, L'Aber Wrac'h, France, 88--105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Honeycutt, C. and Herring, S.C. Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter. HICCS '09.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T. and Tseng, B. Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities. Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop '07, San Jose, CA, 56--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Krishnamurthy, B., Gill, P. and Arlitt, M. A Few Chirps about Twitter. First Workshop on Online Social Networks, Seattle, WA, 19--24, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Lieberman, M.D. and Lin, J. You Are Where You Edit: Locating Wikipedia Users Through Edit Histories. ICWSM '09, San Jose, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindamood, J., Heatherly, R., Kantarcioglu, M. and Thuraisingham, B. Inferring Private Information Using Social Network Data. WWW '09, Madrid, Spain. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ludford, P.J., Priedhorsky, R., Reily, K. and Terveen, L.G. Capturing, Sharing, and Using Local Place Information. CHI '07, San Jose, CA, 1235--1244. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. McCallum, A. and Nigam, K. A Comparison of Event Models for Naive Bayes Text Classification. AAAI-98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization, 41--48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Naaman, M., Boase, J. and Lai, C.-H. Is it Really About Me? Message Content in Social Awareness Streams. CSCW '10, Savannah, GA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Panciera, K., Priedhorsky, R., Erickson, T. and Terveen, L.G. Lurking? Cyclopaths? A Quantitative Lifecycle Analysis of User Behavior in a Geowiki. CHI '10, Atlanta, GA, 1917--1926. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Popescu, A. and Grefenstette, G. Mining User Home Location and Gender from Flickr Tags. ICWSM '10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Priedhorsky, R. and Terveen, L.G. The Computational Geowiki: What, Why, and How. CSCW '08, San Diego. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Reddy, S., Shilton, K., Denisov, G., Cenizal, C., Estrin, D. and Srivastava, M. Biketastic: Sensing and Mapping for Better Biking. CHI '10, Atlanta, GA, 1817--1820. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M. and Matsuo, Y. Earthquake Shakes Twitter Users: Real-time Event Detection by Social Sensors. WWW '10, Raleigh, NC. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Schonfeld, E. Costolo: Twitter Now Has 190 Million Users Tweeting 65 Million Times A Day. TechCrunch. http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/08/twitter-190-million-users/, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Starbird, K., Palen, L., Hughes, A.L. and Vieweg, S. Chatter on The Red: What Hazards Thread Reveals about the Social Life of Microblogged Information. CSCW '10, Savannah, GA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Twitter. Location, Location, Location. twitterblog. http://blog.twitter.com/2009/08/location-location- location.html, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Vieweg, S., Hughes, A.L., Starbird, K. and Palen, L. Microblogging During Two Natural Hazards Events: What Twitter May Contribute to Situational Awareness. CHI '10, Atlanta, GA, 1079--1088. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Tweets from Justin Bieber's heart: the dynamics of the location field in user profiles

            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
              CHI '11: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
              May 2011
              3530 pages
              ISBN:9781450302289
              DOI:10.1145/1978942

              Copyright © 2011 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: 7 May 2011

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              CHI '11 Paper Acceptance Rate410of1,532submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader