Social media networks such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google Plus have experienced exponential growth in recently years as web-based communication platforms. Hundreds of millions of people are using various forms of social media networks every day to communicate and stay connected with each other. Consequently, the resulting activities from the users on the social media networks, such as tweets posted on Twitter, becomes phenomenal and can be collected for various kinds of measurements and analysis. Specifically, these user activity data can be retrieved from the social data sources of the social networks through their respective publicly available Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), indexed, processed, and stored locally for further analysis.
These stream data from the social networks collected in real time along with those collected and stored overtime provide the basis for a variety of measurements and analysis. Some of the metrics for measurements and analysis include but are not limited to:
In addition to the above measurements and analysis performed on the content of the data, it is also important to analyze the aggregated sentiments of the users expressed through their activities (e.g., Tweets and posts) on the social networks as well. For a non-limiting example, such aggregated sentiments can be measured by the percentage of tweets expressed by a group of users on the certain topic over a certain period of time that are positive, neutral and negative. Although such measurement of the sentiments of the users expressed over the social networks provide real-time gauges of their views/opinions, such measurement may be biased due to various factors, including but not limited to, the type of users most active and thus most likely to express their feelings on the social networks, timing and preferred way of expression by each individual user, etc. Consequently, as measured, the sentiments of users expressed on the social networks on certain matters or events may not be a true and accurate reflection of the sentiments of the public at large.
The foregoing examples of the related art and limitations related therewith are intended to be illustrative and not exclusive. Other limitations of the related art will become apparent upon a reading of the specification and a study of the drawings.
The approach is illustrated by way of example and not by way of limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which like references indicate similar elements. It should be noted that references to “an” or “one” or “some” embodiment(s) in this disclosure are not necessarily to the same embodiment, and such references mean at least one.
A new approach is proposed that contemplates systems and methods to provide the ability to detect, measure, aggregate, and normalize sentiments expressed by a group of users on a certain event or topic on a social network so that the normalized sentiments truly reflect the sentiments of the general public on that specific event or topic. Here, the measurement of the aggregated sentiments expressed by the users can be normalized based on one or more of the natural bias of the social network on which the opinions of the users are expressed, nature of the event or topic of the discussion, and the timing of the activities of the users on the social network. Additionally, the collected and measured sentiments of an individual user expressed on a social network can also be normalized against a baseline sentiment that reflects the natural tendency of each individual user and/or sentiments expressed in other content linked to the individual user in order to truly reflect the user's sentiment at the time of his/her expression.
As referred to hereinafter, a social media network or social network, can be any publicly accessible web-based platform or community that enables its users/members to post, share, communicate, and interact with each other. For non-limiting examples, such social media network can be but is not limited to, Facebook, Google+, Tweeter, LinkedIn, blogs, forums, or any other web-based communities.
As referred to hereinafter, a user's activities on a social media network include but are not limited to, tweets, replies and/or re-tweets to the tweets, posts, comments to other users' posts, opinions (e.g., Likes), feeds, connections (e.g., add other user as friend), references, links to other websites or applications, or any other activities on the social network. In contrast to a typical web content, which creation time may not always be clearly associated with the content, one unique characteristics of a user's activities on the social network is that there is an explicit time stamp associated with each of the activities, making it possible to establish a pattern of the user's activities over time on the social network.
In the example of
In the example of
In the example of
In the example of
In some embodiments, data collection engine 102 may establish an activity distribution pattern/model for each of the users over time based on the timestamps associated with the activities of the user on the social network. Such activity distribution pattern over time may reflect when each individual user is most or least active on the social network and the frequency of the user's activities on the social network and can be used to set up the activity collection schedule for the user. For a non-limiting example, the user may be most active on the social network between the hours of 8-12 in the evenings while may be least active during early mornings, or the user is most active on weekends rather than week days.
In some embodiments, data collection engine 102 may also determine whether and/or when each individual user is likely to be most active upon the occurrence of certain events, such as certain sports event or product news (e.g., iPhone release) the user is following. Alternatively, data collection engine 102 may determine that the user's activities are closely related to the activities of one or more his/her friends the user is connected to on the social network. For a non-limiting example, if one or more of the user's friends become active, e.g., starting an interesting discussion or participating in an online game, it is also likely to cause to user to get actively involved as well.
In some embodiments, data collection engine 102 may collect data on the activities of the users on the social network by utilizing an application programming interface (API) provided by the social network. For a non-limiting example, the OpenGraph API provided by Facebook exposes multiple resources (i.e., data related to activities of a user) on the social network, wherein every type of resource has an ID and an introspection method is available to learn the type and the methods available on it. Here, IDs can be user names and/or numbers. Since all resources have numbered IDs and only some have named IDs, only use numbered IDs are used to refer to resources.
In the example of
Once the sentiments of the users are detected based on the collected activities of the users, sentiment analysis engine 104 evaluates and aggregates the sentiments of the users (positive or negative sentiments) toward the specific event or topic. For a non-limiting example, analyzing iPhone related tweets on Twitter around the launch time of a new iPhone may show that 21% of the users are positive vs. 18% of the users are negative. If the time period is extended to one week or one month after the launch, the social sentiment score may point to a different sentiment score (higher percentage of users being positive or negative) as the users have more time experience with the new iPhone.
In some embodiments, sentiment analysis engine 104 normalizes the aggregated sentiments of the users and/or the sentiment of each individual user against a baseline sentiment that takes into account one or more factors/bias, which include but are not limited to, the natural bias of the social network on which the opinions of the users are expressed, nature of the event or topic of the discussion, and the timing of the activities of the users on the social network. Here, various statistical measures, such as means, averages, standard deviations, coherence or any combination of these measures can be used by sentiment analysis engine 104 to normalize the measured sentiments of the users over time. Such sentiment normalization is necessary in order to obtain an accurate measure of the sentiment of each individual user and/or the general public toward the specific event. In addition, sentiment analysis engine 104 may normalize the measured sentiment of each individual user against the natural tendency of each individual user and/or sentiments expressed in other content linked to the individual user.
In some embodiments, sentiment analysis engine 104 calculates a social sentiment score for the event or topic based on normalized measurement of sentiments of each individual user or the users as a group. Here, the social sentiment score for the event represents normalized sentiments of the individual user or users expressed on the social network toward the current event and/or over certain time period (depending upon the timestamps of the activities of the users being analyzed), wherein such social sentiment score reflect either the true sentiment of the individual user or the sentiments of the general public.
In the previous example of analyzing sentiments of users around the launching of new iPhone, the measured sentiment based on tweets of the users on Twitter is only slightly positive (21% positive vs. 18% negative) toward iPhone launch. However, since the sentiments expressed on Twitter tends to be more negative than the sentiments of the general public, the slight positive sentiment reading is in fact much more positive when normalized by sentiment analysis engine 104 against the negative bias of Twitter.
For another non-limiting example, the most intense negative sentiment expressed by users on Twitter tends to be toward things related to politics, while the most intense positive sentiment is not as intense as the negative sentiment, and focus on non-controversial topics such as travel, photography, etc. As such, sentiment scores measured by sentiment analysis engine 104 have to be normalized with this knowledge in mind and a slightly positive reading on a political event may actually indicate that the event is fairly well received when normalized with the fact that most sentiments around political terms are overwhelmingly negative.
For another non-limiting example, if User #1 tends to be more positive in his/her choice of words/phrases (e.g., he/she always says “that's great”), while User #2 tends to be more reserved in his/her choice of words/phrases (e.g., he/she always says “that's ok”), then a positive expression (e.g., “that's great”) by User #2 is in fact quite positive when being normalized by sentiment analysis engine 104 against his/her negative bias, while the same expression by User #1 may be just neutral when being normalized against his/her positive bias.
In the example of
One embodiment may be implemented using a conventional general purpose or a specialized digital computer or microprocessor(s) programmed according to the teachings of the present disclosure, as will be apparent to those skilled in the computer art. Appropriate software coding can readily be prepared by skilled programmers based on the teachings of the present disclosure, as will be apparent to those skilled in the software art. The invention may also be implemented by the preparation of integrated circuits or by interconnecting an appropriate network of conventional component circuits, as will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art.
One embodiment includes a computer program product which is a machine readable medium (media) having instructions stored thereon/in which can be used to program one or more hosts to perform any of the features presented herein. The machine readable medium can include, but is not limited to, one or more types of disks including floppy disks, optical discs, DVD, CD-ROMs, micro drive, and magneto-optical disks, ROMs, RAMs, EPROMs, EEPROMs, DRAMs, VRAMs, flash memory devices, magnetic or optical cards, nanosystems (including molecular memory ICs), or any type of media or device suitable for storing instructions and/or data. Stored on any one of the computer readable medium (media), the present invention includes software for controlling both the hardware of the general purpose/specialized computer or microprocessor, and for enabling the computer or microprocessor to interact with a human viewer or other mechanism utilizing the results of the present invention. Such software may include, but is not limited to, device drivers, operating systems, execution environments/containers, and applications.
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/551,833, filed Oct. 26, 2011, and entitled “Mood normalization in sentiment detection,” and is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6151585 | Altschuler et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6286005 | Cannon | Sep 2001 | B1 |
7512612 | Akella et al. | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7636714 | Lamping et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7885844 | Cohen et al. | Feb 2011 | B1 |
8086605 | Xu et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8166026 | Sadler | Apr 2012 | B1 |
8166925 | Suggett | May 2012 | B2 |
8352549 | Sacco et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8572173 | Briere et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
20030110056 | Berghofer et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030229531 | Heckerman et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040225592 | Churquina | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050060312 | Curtiss et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050131897 | Grasso et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050154690 | Nitta et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050192957 | Newbold | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050256866 | Lu et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060041543 | Achlioptas | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060059055 | Lin | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060074836 | Gardner et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060112111 | Tseng et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060112146 | Song et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060218577 | Goodman et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060248073 | Jones et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060294085 | Rose et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060294086 | Rose et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060294134 | Berkhim et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070027744 | Carson et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070078699 | Scott et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070121843 | Atazky et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070124432 | Holtzman et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070150398 | Rossen et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070156636 | Norton et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070168533 | Canright et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070208613 | Backer | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070219863 | Park et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070226248 | Darr | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070282867 | Mcallister et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070297405 | He | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080004942 | Calabria | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080010253 | Sidhu et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080059466 | Luo et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080104225 | Zhang et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080133426 | Porat et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080215429 | Ramer et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080215557 | Ramer et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080215571 | Huang et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080275833 | Zhou et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080288305 | LaLuzerne et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080288596 | Smith et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080313011 | Rose et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090049038 | Gross | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090106224 | Roulland et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090106244 | Dash et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090119173 | Parsons et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090217178 | Niyogi et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090234828 | Tu | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090240647 | Green et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090276500 | Karmarkar | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090319342 | Shilman et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100058196 | Krishnan et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100070448 | Omoigui | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100100537 | Druzgalski et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100119053 | Goeldi | May 2010 | A1 |
20100121817 | Meyer | May 2010 | A1 |
20100121839 | Meyer | May 2010 | A1 |
20100174692 | Meyer | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100306192 | Kapur et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110004465 | Rose et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110022602 | Luo et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110078156 | Koss | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110093459 | Dong et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110191372 | Kaushansky et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110212717 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20120166438 | Wu et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120215903 | Fleischman et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2003288437 | Oct 2003 | JP |
WO-2006073977 | Jul 2006 | WO |
WO2006116516 | Nov 2006 | WO |
WO2008006059 | Jan 2008 | WO |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for corresponding International Application No. PCT/US2012/062156, mailing date Apr. 8, 2013, 8 pages. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for corresponding International Application No. PCT/US2012/062156, mailing date May 8, 2014, 7 pages. |
Fan, et al., “Suggesting Topic-Based Query Terms as Your Type”, 2010 12th International Asia-Pacific Web Conference (Apr. 2010). |
Guha, R., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P., and Tomkins, A. 2004. Propagation of trust and distrust. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web (New York, NY, USA, May 17-20, 2004). WWW '04. ACM, New York, NY, pp. 403-412. |
Ziegler, C. and Lausen, G. 2005. Propagation Models for Trust and Distrust in Social Networks. Information Systems Frontiers 7, 4-5 (Dec. 2005), 337-358. |
Tao, Yufei et al: “Selectivity Estimation of Predictive Spatio-Temporal Queries”, Proceedings 19th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE'2003). Bangladore, India, Mar. 5-8, 2003; pp. 417-428. |
Dai, Na et al: “Mining Anchor Text Trends for Retrieval” Mar. 28, 2010; pp. 127-139. |
Ashkan, Azin et al: “Classifying and Characterizing Query Intent”, Apr. 6, 2009, pp. 578-586. |
Garfield, E.:“Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation”, 1972, pp. 527-544, XP002381248. |
Johnson, Caleb: “Likebutton.me Reveals What Your Friends ‘Like’ Across the Web”; Apr. 26, 2010, pp. 1-7; XP000002656471. |
Anonymous: “H-index”, Wikipedia, Internet Article, Jun. 10, 2010; pp. 1-3; XP000002656472. |
Dietz, Laura et al: “Unsupervised Prediction of Citation Influences”, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning, Jun. 20, 2007; pp. 233-240; XP55004362. |
Huang, Jeff et al: “Conversational Tagging in Twitter”, Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia; Jun. 13, 2010; p. 173; XP55004356. |
Page, L. et al: “The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web”, Internet Citation; Jan. 29, 1998; XP002213518. |
Massa, Paolo et al: “Using Trust in Recommender Systems: An Experimental Analysis” Feb. 26, 2004; pp. 221-235, section 1.1; pp. 222-223, sections 1.3 and 2; pp. 225-227. |
Liu, “Co-authorship networks in the digital brary research community”, 2005, Elsevier, Information Processing and Management 41 (2005) pp. 1462-1480. |
Von Der Weth, “Towards an objective assessment of centrality measures in reputation systems”, 2007, IEEE, 0-7695-2913. |
Zhou, “Powertrust: A robust and scalable reputation system for trusted peer-to-peer computing”, 2007, IEEE, 1-45-921907. |
Lu at al., “Finding Query Suggestions for PubMed”, 2009, AMIA. |
Makkonen et al., Topic Detection and Tracking with Spatio-Temporal Evidence, published Spring 2003. |
Wolf, J.L. et al., “Optimal Crawling Strategies for Web Search Engines”, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2002, p. 136-147. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130110928 A1 | May 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61551833 | Oct 2011 | US |