skip to main content
10.1145/2470654.2470658acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 April 2013Publication History

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.

References

  1. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. I. Altman. The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, and Crowding. ERIC, 1975.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. P. André, M. Bernstein, and K. Luther. Who gives a tweet?: evaluating microblog content value. In Proc. CSCW 2012, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. E. Bakshy, J. Hofman, W. Mason, and D. Watts. Everyone's an in\'02uencer: quantifying influence on twitter. In Proc. WSDM 2011, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. Bernstein, A. Marcus, D. Karger, and R. Miller. Enhancing directed content sharing on the web. In Proc. CHI 2010, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. d. boyd. Friends, friendsters, and myspace top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, 11(12), 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. d. boyd. Social network sites: Public, private, or what? Knowledge Tree, 13(1):1--7, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. M. Burke, C. Marlow, and T. Lento. Feed me: motivating newcomer contribution in social network sites. In Proc. CHI 2009, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. K. Caine, L. Kisselburgh, and L. Lareau. Audience visualization influences disclosures in online social networks. In Ext. Abst. CHI 2011, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. H. Clark and G. Murphy. Audience design in meaning and reference. Advances in psychology, 9:287--299, 1982.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. S. Counts and K. Fisher. Taking it all in? visual attention in microblog consumption. Proc. ICWSM 2011, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. N. Ellison et al. Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1):210--230, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. T. Erickson and W. Kellogg. Social translucence: an approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM TOCHI, 7(1):59--83, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. E. Gilbert. Designing social translucence over social networks. In Proc. CHI 2012, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. E. Goffman. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY, 1959.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. S. Gosling, S. Gaddis, S. Vazire, et al. Personality impressions based on facebook profiles. In Proc. ICWSM 2007, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. H. Kwak, H. Chun, and S. Moon. Fragile online relationship: a \'01rst look at unfollow dynamics in twitter. In Proc. CHI 2011, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. C. Lampe, N. Ellison, and C. Steinfield. Changes in use and perception of facebook. In Proc. CSCW 2008, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. E. Lieberman and R. Miller. Facemail: showing faces of recipients to prevent misdirected email. In Proc. SOUPS 2007, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. R. Metz. Friendster outs voyeurs. Wired, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. B. Nonnecke and J. Preece. Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. In Proc. CHI 2000, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. L. Palen and P. Dourish. Unpacking privacy for a networked world. In Proc. CHI 2003, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Z. Tufekci. Facebook, youth and privacy in networked publics. In Proc. ICWSM 2012, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive psychology, 5(2):207--232, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. J. Ugander, B. Karrer, L. Backstrom, and C. Marlow. The anatomy of the facebook social graph. CoRR, abs/1111.4503, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. F. Viégas. Bloggers' expectations of privacy and accountability: An initial survey. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. F. Viégas and J. Donath. Chat circles. In Proc. CHI 1999, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2013
      3550 pages
      ISBN:9781450318990
      DOI:10.1145/2470654

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 April 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '13 Paper Acceptance Rate392of1,963submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader