Advertisement

Clustering with Error-Estimation for Monitoring Reputation of Companies on Twitter

  • Muhammad Atif Qureshi
  • Colm O’Riordan
  • Gabriella Pasi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8281)

Abstract

The aim of this research is to easily monitor the reputation of a company in the Twittersphere. We propose a strategy that organizes a stream of tweets into different clusters based on the tweets’ topics. Furthermore, the obtained clusters are assigned into different priority levels. A cluster with high priority represents a topic which may affect the reputation of a company, and that consequently deserves immediate attention. The evaluation results show that our method is competitive even though the method does not make use of any external knowledge resource.

Keywords

Monitoring social streams Clustering Priority-level assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amigó, E., Corujo, A., Gonzalo, J., Meij, E., de Rijke, M.: Overview of replab 2012: Evaluating online reputation management systems. In: CLEF 2012 Labs and Workshop Notebook Papers (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amigo, E., Gonzalo, J., Verdejo, F.: Reliability and Sensitivity: Generic Evaluation Measures for Document Organization Tasks. UNED, Madrid, Spain, Technical Report (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker, H., Naaman, M., Gravano, L.: Beyond trending topics: Real-world event identification on twitter. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davidov, D., Tsur, O., Rappoport, A.: Enhanced sentiment learning using twitter hashtags and smileys. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Posters, pp. 241–249. Association for Computational Linguistics (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diao, Q., Jiang, J., Zhu, F., Lim, E.-P.: Finding bursty topics from microblogs. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Long Papers, vol. 1, pp. 536–544. Association for Computational Linguistics (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ellen, J.: All about microtext: A working definition and a survey of current microtext research within artificial intelligence and natural language processing. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hong, L., Davison, B.D.: Empirical study of topic modeling in twitter. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Social Media Analytics, pp. 80–88. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ilina, E., Hauff, C., Celik, I., Abel, F., Houben, G.-J.: Social event detection on twitter. In: Brambilla, M., Tokuda, T., Tolksdorf, R. (eds.) ICWE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7387, pp. 169–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jansen, B.J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., Chowdury, A.: Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(11), 2169–2188 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Connor, B., Balasubramanyan, R., Routledge, B.R., Smith, N.A.: From tweets to polls: Linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, pp. 122–129 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pak, A., Paroubek, P.: Twitter as a corpus for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In: LREC (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petrović, S., Osborne, M., Lavrenko, V.: Streaming first story detection with application to twitter. In: Human Language Technologies: The, Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, HLT 2010, pp. 181–189. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ramage, D., Dumais, S., Liebling, D.: Characterizing microblogs with topic models. In: International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, vol. 5, pp. 130–137 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ritter, A., Clark, S., Mausam, Etzioni, O.: Named entity recognition in tweets: an experimental study. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2011, pp. 1524–1534. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., Matsuo, Y.: Earthquake shakes twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2010, pp. 851–860. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Toutanova, K., Manning, C.D.: Enriching the knowledge sources used in a maximum entropy part-of-speech tagger. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora: Held in Conjunction with the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EMNLP 2000, vol. 13, pp. 63–70. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weng, J., Lee, B.-S.: Event detection in twitter. In: Proceedings of the 5th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, vol. 3 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weng, J., Lim, E.-P., Jiang, J., He, Q.: Twitterrank: finding topic-sensitive influential twitterers. In: Proceedings of the Third ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp. 261–270. ACM (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muhammad Atif Qureshi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Colm O’Riordan
    • 1
  • Gabriella Pasi
    • 2
  1. 1.Computational Intelligence Research Group, Information TechnologyNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Information Retrieval Lab, Informatics, Systems and CommunicationUniversity of Milan BicoccaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations