Advertisement

Visualizing Targeted Audiences

  • Saiph Savage
  • Angus Forbes
  • Carlos Toxtli
  • Grant McKenzie
  • Shloka Desai
  • Tobias Höllerer
Conference paper

Abstract

Users of social networks can be passionate about sharing their political convictions, art projects, or business ventures. They often want to direct their social interactions to certain people in order to start collaborations or to raise awareness about issues they support. However, users generally have scattered, unstructured information about the characteristics of their audiences, making it difficult for them to deliver the right messages or interactions to the right people. Existing audience-targeting tools allow people to select potential candidates based on predefined lists, but the tools provide few insights about whether or not these people would be appropriate for a specific type of communication. We introduce an online tool, Hax, to explore instead the idea of using interactive data visualizations to help people dynamically identify audiences for their different sharing efforts. We provide the results of a preliminary empirical evaluation that shows the strength of the idea and points to areas for future research.

Keywords

Targeted audiences Targeted sharing Online audience Selective sharing Social networks Online community Facebook 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by a UC MEXUS-CONACYT fellowship, by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory under Cooperative Agreement No. W911NF-09-2-0053 and by NSF grant IIS-1058132. Special thanks to our participants and the anonymous reviewers whose thoughtful feedback helped improve the presentation of this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Askanase (2013) D Returning to facebook groups, May 2013. http://communityorganizer20.com/2012/05/31/returning-to-facebook-groups/
  2. 2.
    Barranco M, Noguera J, Castro J, Martnez L (2012) A context-aware mobile recommender system based on location and trajectory. In: Casillas J, Martnez-Lpez FJ, Corchado Rodrguez JM (eds) Management intelligent systems, vol. 171 of advances in intelligent systems and computing, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 153–162Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bentley R, Hughes JA, Randall D, Rodden T, Sawyer P, Shapiro D, Sommerville I (1992) Ethnographically-informed systems design for air traffic control. In: Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work, CSCW ‘92, ACM, New York, pp 123–129Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernstein MS, BakshyE, Burke M, Karrer B (2013) Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’13, ACM, New York, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernstein MS, Marcus A, Karger DR, Miller RC (2010) Enhancing directed content sharing on the web. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’10, ACM, New York, pp 971–980Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brennan K, Monroy-Hernndez A, Resnick M (2010) Making projects, making friends: Online community as catalyst for interactive media creation. New Dir Youth Dev 2010(128):75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Butler B, Sproull L, Kiesler S, Kraut R (2001) Community effort in online groups: Who does the work and why? Leadership at a Distance: Research in Technologically-Supported Work Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chavez N, Savage R, NavaD, Savage S (2012) Enchantment under the sea: an intelligent environment for user friendly music mixing. In: Intelligent environments (IE), 2012 8th international conference on, pp 303–306, June 2012Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen D, Tang J, Li J, Zhou L (2009) Discovering the staring people from social networks. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on the world wide web, ACM, New York, pp 1219–1220Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen J, Geyer W, Dugan C, Muller M, Guy I (2009) Make new friends, but keep the old: recommending people on social networking sites. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’09, ACM, New York, pp 201–210Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheyne TL, Ritter FE (2001) Targeting audiences on the internet. Commun ACM 44(4):94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Etemad K, Carpendale S (2010) Symmetry and node focused visualization of large trees. In: GRAND NCE Annual Conference, GRANDGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Forbes AG, Savage S, Höllerer T (2012) Visualizing and verifying directed social queries. In: IEEE workshop on interactive visual text analytics, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gavalas D, Kasapakis V, Konstantopoulos C, Mastakas K, Pantziou GA (2013) survey on mobile tourism recommender systems. In: Communications and information technology (ICCIT), 2013 3rd international conference on (June 2013), pp 131–135Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kairam S, Brzozowski M, Huffaker D, Chi E (2012) Talking in circles: selective sharing in google + . In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’12, ACM, New York, pp 1065–1074Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lampinen A, Lehtinen V, Lehmuskallio A, Tamminen S (2011) We’re in it together: interpersonal management of disclosure in social network services. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’11, ACM, New York, pp 3217–3226Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Latané B, Darley J (1968) Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. J Pers Soc Psychol 10(3):215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCroskey JC, McCain TA (1974) The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monogr 41(3):261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McDonald DW, Ackerman MS (2000) Expertise recommender: a exible recommendation system and architecture. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work, ACM, New York, pp 231–240Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McKenzie G, Adams B, Janowicz K (2013) A thematic approach to user similarity built on geosocial check-ins. In: Association of geographic information laboratories in Europe. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 39–53Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nichols J, Zhou M, Yang H, Kang J-H, Sun XH (2013) Analyzing the quality of information solicited from targeted strangers on social media. In: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer-supported cooperative work, ACM, New York, pp 967–976Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Otto P, Simon M (2008) Dynamic perspectives on social characteristics and sustainability in online community networks. Syst Dyn Rev 24(3):321–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perer AGuy I, Uziel E, Ronen I, Jacovi M (2011) Visual social network analytics for relationship discovery in the enterprise. In: 2011 IEEE conference on visual analytics science and technology (VAST), IEEE, New Jersey, pp 71–79Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ramage D, HallD, Nallapati R, Manning CD (2009) Labeled lda: a supervised topic model for credit attribution in multi-labeled corpora. In: Proceedings of the 2009 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, vol 1 of EMNLP ’09, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 248–256Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raubal M, Miller H, Bridwell S (2004) User centered time geography for location-based services. Geografiska Annaler B 86(4):245–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Savage NS, Baranski M, Chavez NE, Höllerer T (2012) I’m feeling loco: a location based context aware recommendation system. Advances in location-based services: 8th international symposium on location-based services, Vienna 2011 (2012), Springer, Heidelberg, pp 37Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shneiderman B (1996) The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE symposium on visual languages, VL ’96, IEEE computer society (1996)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singer L, Filho FMF, Cleary B, Treude C, Storey M-AD, Schneider K (2013) Mutual assessment in the social programmer ecosystem: an empirical investigation of developer profile aggregators. In: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer-supported cooperative work, ACM, New York, pp 103–116Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thomson AM, Perry JL (2006) Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Adm Rev 66:20–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Whittaker S, Jones Q, Nardi B, Creech M, Terveen L, Isaacs E, Hainsworth J (2004) Contactmap: organizing communication in a social desktop. ACM Trans Comput-Human Interact (TOCHI) 11(4):445–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saiph Savage
    • 1
    • 2
  • Angus Forbes
    • 3
  • Carlos Toxtli
    • 2
  • Grant McKenzie
    • 1
  • Shloka Desai
    • 3
  • Tobias Höllerer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Universidad Nacional Autonoma de MexicoMexico CityMexico
  3. 3.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations