The Online Debate Networks Analysis: A Case Study of Debates at Tianya Forum

  • Can Wang
  • Xijin TangEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 660)


In this study, we examine the characteristics of online debate networks. We empirically investigate the debate networks formed by three hot threads from Tianya Forum at individual, whole-network and triad levels. At the individual level, the statistical analysis reveals that people participate different threads about one issue; authors reply to themselves; the authors of the original posts are the core of the interaction; we rank the indegree value and betweenness value of the authors, and find that they are not consistent in sequence. At the whole-network level, the structural indices reveal that the stances of the original posts affect the debate networks. At the triad level, the proportions of coded triads reveal that the common forms in debate networks are mutual dyads; the proportions of triadic closures reveal that relations between participants are different in the two camps; and the balanced triads between camps are more than those within camps.


Debate networks Online social network Triads Tianya Forum 



This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61473284 and 71371107).


  1. 1.
    Somasundaran, S., Wiebe, J.: Recognizing stances in ideological on-line debates. In: NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Analysis and Generation of Emotion in Text, Los Angeles, pp. 116–124 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu, B.: Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found. Trends Inf. Retrieval 2(1–2), 1–135 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang, C., Tang, X.J.: Stance analysis for debates on traditional Chinese medicine at Tianya Forum. In: 5th International Conference on Computational Social Networks, Ho Chi Minh, pp. 321–332 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agrawal, R., Rajagopalan, S., Srikant, R., et al.: Mining newsgroups using networks arising from social behavior. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 529–535. ACM, Budapest (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang, Y., Chen, Q., Liu, W.: The structural evolution of an online discussion network. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 389(24), 5871–5877 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhao, Y.L., Tang, X.J.: In-depth analysis of online hot discussion about TCM. In: 15th International Symposium on Knowledge and Systems Science, pp. 275–283. JAIST Press, Sapporo (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Watts, D.J., Strogatz, S.H.: Collective dynamics of ‘small-worldʼ networks. Nature 393(6684), 440–442 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis, J.A., Leinhardt, S.: The structure of positive interpersonal relations in small groups. Sociological Theories in Progress 2, 218–251 (1972)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li, Z.P., Tang, X.J.: Triadic and M-cycles balance in social network. In: 15th International Symposium on Knowledge and Systems Science, pp. 275–283. JAIST Press, Sapporo (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lou, T.C., Tang, J., Hopcroft, J., et al.: Learning to predict reciprocity and triadic closure in social networks. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data 7(2), 1825–1835 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Granovetter, M.S.: The strength of weak ties. Soc. Sci. Electron. Publishing 78(2), 1360–1380 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, Z.P., Tang, X.J.: Group polarization: connecting, influence and balance, a simulation study based on Hopfield modeling. In: 12th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Kuching, pp. 710–721 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Systems ScienceAcademy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations