ABSTRACT
When you share content in an online social network, who is listening? Users have scarce information about who actually sees their content, making their audience seem invisible and difficult to estimate. However, understanding this invisible audience can impact both science and design, since perceived audiences influence content production and self-presentation online. In this paper, we combine survey and large-scale log data to examine how well users' perceptions of their audience match their actual audience on Facebook. We find that social media users consistently underestimate their audience size for their posts, guessing that their audience is just 27% of its true size. Qualitative coding of survey responses reveals folk theories that attempt to reverse-engineer audience size using feedback and friend count, though none of these approaches are particularly accurate. We analyze audience logs for 222,000 Facebook users' posts over the course of one month and find that publicly visible signals --- friend count, likes, and comments --- vary widely and do not strongly indicate the audience of a single post. Despite the variation, users typically reach 61% of their friends each month. Together, our results begin to reveal the invisible undercurrents of audience attention and behavior in online social networks.
- A. Acquisti and R. Gross. Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the facebook. In Privacy enhancing technologies, pages 36--58. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Altman. The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, and Crowding. ERIC, 1975.Google Scholar
- P. André, M. Bernstein, and K. Luther. Who gives a tweet?: evaluating microblog content value. In Proc. CSCW 2012, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Backstrom, E. Bakshy, J. Kleinberg, T. Lento, and I. Rosenn. Center of attention: How facebook users allocate attention across friends. In Proc. ICWSM 2011, 2011.Google Scholar
- E. Bakshy, J. Hofman, W. Mason, and D. Watts. Everyone's an in\'02uencer: quantifying influence on twitter. In Proc. WSDM 2011, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Bakshy, I. Rosenn, C. Marlow, and L. Adamic. The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web, WWW '12, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Bernstein, A. Marcus, D. Karger, and R. Miller. Enhancing directed content sharing on the web. In Proc. CHI 2010, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- d. boyd. Friends, friendsters, and myspace top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, 11(12), 2006.Google Scholar
- d. boyd. Social network sites: Public, private, or what? Knowledge Tree, 13(1):1--7, 2007.Google Scholar
- M. Burke, C. Marlow, and T. Lento. Feed me: motivating newcomer contribution in social network sites. In Proc. CHI 2009, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Caine, L. Kisselburgh, and L. Lareau. Audience visualization influences disclosures in online social networks. In Ext. Abst. CHI 2011, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Clark and G. Murphy. Audience design in meaning and reference. Advances in psychology, 9:287--299, 1982.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Counts and K. Fisher. Taking it all in? visual attention in microblog consumption. Proc. ICWSM 2011, 2011.Google Scholar
- N. Ellison et al. Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1):210--230, 2007.Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Erickson and W. Kellogg. Social translucence: an approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM TOCHI, 7(1):59--83, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Gilbert. Designing social translucence over social networks. In Proc. CHI 2012, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Goffman. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY, 1959.Google Scholar
- S. Gosling, S. Gaddis, S. Vazire, et al. Personality impressions based on facebook profiles. In Proc. ICWSM 2007, 2007.Google Scholar
- J. Hancock, J. Birnholtz, N. Bazarova, J. Guillory, J. Perlin, and B. Amos. Butler lies: awareness, deception and design. In Proc. CHI 2009, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Hogan. The presentation of self in the age of social media: distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6):377--386, 2010.Google Scholar
- P. Killworth, E. Johnsen, H. Bernard, G. Ann Shelley, and C. McCarty. Estimating the size of personal networks. Social Networks, 12(4):289--312, 1990.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. Kwak, H. Chun, and S. Moon. Fragile online relationship: a \'01rst look at unfollow dynamics in twitter. In Proc. CHI 2011, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Lampe, N. Ellison, and C. Steinfield. A familiar face (book): pro\'01le elements as signals in an online social network. In Proc. CHI 2007, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Lampe, N. Ellison, and C. Steinfield. Changes in use and perception of facebook. In Proc. CSCW 2008, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Lieberman and R. Miller. Facemail: showing faces of recipients to prevent misdirected email. In Proc. SOUPS 2007, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Marwick et al. I tweet honestly, i tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1):114--133, 2011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. McCarty, P. Killworth, H. Bernard, E. Johnsen, and G. Shelley. Comparing two methods for estimating network size. Human Organization, 60(1):28--39, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Metz. Friendster outs voyeurs. Wired, 2005.Google Scholar
- B. Nonnecke and J. Preece. Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. In Proc. CHI 2000, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Palen and P. Dourish. Unpacking privacy for a networked world. In Proc. CHI 2003, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Suh, L. Hong, P. Pirolli, and E. Chi. Want to be retweeted? large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in twitter network. In Proc. SocialCom 2010, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Y. Tsai, P. Kelley, P. Drielsma, L. F. Cranor, J. Hong, and N. Sadeh. Who's viewed you?: the impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application. In Proc. CHI 2009, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Z. Tufekci. Can you see me now? audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(1):20--36, 2008.Google Scholar
- Z. Tufekci. Facebook, youth and privacy in networked publics. In Proc. ICWSM 2012, 2012.Google Scholar
- A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive psychology, 5(2):207--232, 1973.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Ugander, B. Karrer, L. Backstrom, and C. Marlow. The anatomy of the facebook social graph. CoRR, abs/1111.4503, 2011.Google Scholar
- F. Viégas. Bloggers' expectations of privacy and accountability: An initial survey. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. Viégas and J. Donath. Chat circles. In Proc. CHI 1999, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Young and A. Quan-Haase. Information revelation and internet privacy concerns on social network sites: a case study of facebook. In Proc. C&T 2009, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks
Recommendations
Characterizing social cascades in flickr
WOSN '08: Proceedings of the first workshop on Online social networksOnline social networking sites like MySpace and Flickr have become a popular way to share and disseminate content. Their massive popularity has led to the viral marketing of content, products, and political campaigns on the sites themselves. Despite the ...
Building social capital with Facebook: Type of network, availability of other media, and social self-efficacy matter#
Highlights- Type of friends affects building social capital via Facebook and traditional media.
AbstractFindings about Facebook's effect on relationships are mixed, possibly due to lack of models that acknowledge differences across users, types of their friends, and use of competing media. To address this, we proposed and tested how ...
Modeling Self-Disclosure in Social Networking Sites
CSCW '16: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social ComputingSocial networking sites (SNSs) offer users a platform to build and maintain social connections. Understanding when people feel comfortable sharing information about themselves on SNSs is critical to a good user experience, because self-disclosure helps ...
Comments