Skip to main content

TweetCred: Real-Time Credibility Assessment of Content on Twitter

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 8851))

Abstract

During sudden onset crisis events, the presence of spam, rumors and fake content on Twitter reduces the value of information contained on its messages (or “tweets”). A possible solution to this problem is to use machine learning to automatically evaluate the credibility of a tweet, i.e. whether a person would deem the tweet believable or trustworthy. This has been often framed and studied as a supervised classification problem in an off-line (post-hoc) setting.

In this paper, we present a semi-supervised ranking model for scoring tweets according to their credibility. This model is used in TweetCred, a real-time system that assigns a credibility score to tweets in a user’s timeline. TweetCred, available as a browser plug-in, was installed and used by 1,127 Twitter users within a span of three months. During this period, the credibility score for about 5.4 million tweets was computed, allowing us to evaluate TweetCred in terms of response time, effectiveness and usability. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first research work to develop a real-time system for credibility on Twitter, and to evaluate it on a user base of this size.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aggarwal, A., Rajadesingan, A., Kumaraguru, P.: Phishari: Automatic realtime phishing detection on Twitter. In: 7th IEEE APWG eCrime Researchers Summit, eCRS (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brooke, J.: SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Weerdmeester, B., Thomas, A., Mclelland, I.L. (eds.) Usability evaluation in industry. Taylor and Francis, London (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Canini, K.R., Suh, B., Pirolli, P.L.: Finding credible information sources in social networks based on content and social structure. In: SocialCom (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., Poblete, B.: Information credibility on Twitter. In: Proc. WWW, pp. 675–684. ACM (2011), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1963405.1963500

  5. Freund, Y., Iyer, R., Schapire, R.E., Singer, Y.: An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 4, 933–969 (2003)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Ghosh, S., Sharma, N., Benevenuto, F., Ganguly, N., Gummadi, K.: Cognos: crowdsourcing search for topic experts in microblogs. In: Proc. SIGIR (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gupta, A., Kumaraguru, P.: Twitter explodes with activity in Mumbai blasts! a lifeline or an unmonitored daemon in the lurking? Tech. Rep. IIITD-TR-2011-005, IIIT, Delhi (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gupta, A., Kumaraguru, P.: Credibility ranking of tweets during high impact events. In: Proc. 1st Workshop on Privacy and Security in Online Social Media, PSOSM 2012, pp. 2:2–2:8. ACM (2012), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2185354.2185356

  9. Gupta, A., Lamba, H., Kumaraguru, P.: $1.00 per rt #bostonmarathon #prayforboston: Analyzing fake content on Twitter. In: Proc. Eighth IEEE APWG eCrime Research Summit (eCRS), p. 12. IEEE (2013a)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gupta, A., Lamba, H., Kumaraguru, P., Joshi, A.: Faking sandy: characterizing and identifying fake images on Twitter during hurricane sandy. In: Proc. WWW Companion. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, pp. 729–736 (2013b)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Joachims, T.: Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In: Proc. KDD, pp. 133–142. ACM (2002), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/775047.775067

  12. Mendoza, M., Poblete, B., Castillo, C.: Twitter under crisis: can we trust what we rt? In: Proc. First Workshop on Social Media Analytics, SOMA 2010, pp. 71–79. ACM (2010), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1964858.1964869

  13. Metzler, D., Croft, W.B.: Linear feature-based models for information retrieval. Information Retrieval 10(3), 257–274 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Morris, M.R., Counts, S., Roseway, A., Hoff, A., Schwarz, J.: Tweeting is believing?: Understanding microblog credibility perceptions. In: Proc. CSCW. ACM (2012), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2145204.2145274

  15. O’Donovan, J., Kang, B., Meyer, G., Hšllerer, T., Adali, S.: Credibility in context: An analysis of feature distributions in Twitter. ASE/IEEE International Conference on Social Computing, SocialCom (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Oh, O., Agrawal, M., Rao, H.R.: Information control and terrorism: Tracking the mumbai terrorist attack through Twitter. Information Systems Frontiers (March 2011), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10796-010-9275-8

  17. Ratkiewicz, J., Conover, M., Meiss, M., Gonçalves, B., Patil, S., Flammini, A., Menczer, F.: Truthy: mapping the spread of astroturf in microblog streams. In: Proc. WWW 2011 (2011), http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1963192.1963301

  18. Vieweg, S., Hughes, A.L., Starbird, K., Palen, L.: Microblogging during two natural hazards events: what Twitter may contribute to situational awareness. In: Proc. SIGCHI, CHI 2010, pp. 1079–1088. ACM (2010), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1753326.1753486

  19. Xia, X., Yang, X., Wu, C., Li, S., Bao, L.: Information credibility on Twitter in emergency situation. In: Proc. Pacific Asia Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics, PAISI 2012 (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Xu, J., Li, H.: Adarank: A boosting algorithm for information retrieval. In: Proc. SIGIR, pp. 391–398. ACM, New York (2007), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1277741.1277809

    Google Scholar 

  21. Yang, J., Counts, S., Morris, M.R., Hoff, A.: Microblog credibility perceptions: Comparing the usa and china. In: Proc. CSCW, pp. 575–586 (2013), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2441776.2441841

  22. Yardi, S., Romero, D., Schoenebeck, G., Boyd, D.: Detecting spam in a Twitter network. First Monday 15(1) (January 2010), http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2793

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gupta, A., Kumaraguru, P., Castillo, C., Meier, P. (2014). TweetCred: Real-Time Credibility Assessment of Content on Twitter. In: Aiello, L.M., McFarland, D. (eds) Social Informatics. SocInfo 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8851. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13734-6_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13734-6_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-13733-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-13734-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics