Network Analysis of Three Twitter Functions: Favorite, Follow and Mention

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7457)


We analyzed three functions of Twitter (Favorite, Follow and Mention) from network structural point of view. These three functions are characterized by difference and similarity in various measures defined in directed graphs. Favorite function can be viewed by three different graph representations: a simple graph, a multigraph and a bipartite graph, Follow function by one graph representation: a simple graph, and Mention function by two graph representations: a simple graph and a multigraph. We created these graphs from three real world twitter data and found salient features characterizing these functions. Major findings are a very large connected component for Favorite and Follow functions, scale-free property in degree distribution and predominant mutual links in certain network motifs for all three functions, freaks in Gini coefficient and two clusters of popular users for Favorites function, and a structure difference in high degree nodes between Favorite and Mention functions characterizing that Favorite operation is much easier than Mention operation. These finding will be useful in building a preference model of Twitter users.


Bipartite Graph Directed Graph Degree Distribution Gini Coefficient Simple Graph 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brandes, U., Erlebach, T. (eds.): Network Analysis. LNCS, vol. 3418, pp. 293–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fushimi, T., Kubota, Y., Saito, K., Kimura, M., Ohara, K., Motoda, H.: Speeding Up Bipartite Graph Visualization Method. In: Wang, D., Reynolds, M. (eds.) AI 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7106, pp. 697–706. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huberman, B.A., Romero, D.M., Wu, F.: Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday 14(1) (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., Moon, S.: What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 591–600 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Milo, R., Shen-Orr, S., Itzkovitz, S., Kashtan, N., Chklovskii, D., Alon, U.: Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. Science 298, 824–827 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Newman, M.E.J.: The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review 45, 167–256 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salganik, M.J., Dodds, P.S., Watts, D.J.: Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market. Science 311, 854–856 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Toriumi, F., Shinoda, K., Kurihara, S., Sakaki, T., Kazama, K., Noda, I.: Disaster Changes Social Media. In: Proceedings of the 7th Conference of JWEIN (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Management and InformationUniversity of ShizuokaSuruga-kuJapan
  2. 2.Institute of Scientific and Industrial ResearchOsaka UniversityIbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations