Digital Traces of Interest: Deriving Interest Relationships from Social Media Interactions

  • Michal Jacovi
  • Ido Guy
  • Inbal Ronen
  • Adam Perer
  • Erel Uziel
  • Michael Maslenko
Conference paper


Facebook and Twitter have changed the way we consume information, allowing the people we follow to become our “social filters” and determine the content of our information stream. The capability to discover the individuals a user is most interested in following has therefore become an important aspect of the struggle against information overflow. We argue that the people users are most interested in following are not necessarily those with whom they are most familiar. We compare these two types of social relationships – interest and familiarity – inside IBM. We suggest inferring interest relationships from users’ public interactions on four enterprise social media applications. We study these interest relationships through an offline analysis as well as an extensive user study, in which we combine people-based and content-based evaluations. The paper reports a rich set of results, comparing various sources for implicit interest indications; distinguishing between content-related activities and status or network updates, showing that the former are of more interest; and highlighting that the interest relationships include very interesting individuals that are not among the most familiar ones, and can therefore play an important role in social stream filtering, especially for content-related activities.


Social Network Site News Item Status Update File Reading Familiar People 
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.
    Aizenbud-Reshef, N., Guy, I., and Jacovi, M. 2009. Collaborative feed reading in a community. Proc. GROUP ‘09, 277–280.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergamaschi, S., Guerra, F., Orsini, M., Sartori, C., and Vincini, M. 2009. Relevant News: a semantic news feed aggregator. Proc. Italian Semantic Web Workshop 2007.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernstein, M., Kairam, S., Suh, B., Hong, L., and Chi, E.H. 2010. A torrent of tweets: managing information overload in online social streams. Workshop on Microblogging, CHI ‘10.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonhard, P., Harries, C., McCarthy, J., & Sasse, M. A. 2006. Accounting for taste: using profile similarity to improve recommender systems. Proc. CHI 06, 1057–1066.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boyd, D. 2008. Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: exposure, invasion, and social convergence. Convergence 14 (1).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Celi, F., Di Lascio, F.M.L., Magnani, M., Pacelli, B., and Rossi, L. 2010. Social network data and practices: the case of Friendfeed. Advances in Social computing, 346–353.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, J., Nairn, R., Nelson, L., Bernstein, M., and Chi, E.H. 2010. Short and tweet: experiments on recommending content from information streams. Proc. CHI 10, 1185–1194.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Claypool, M., Le, P., Wased, M., & Brown, D. 2001. Implicit Interest Indicators. Proc. IUI ‘01, 33–40.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cosley, D., Ludford, P., and Terveen, L. 2003. Studying the effect of similarity in online taskfocused interactions. Proc. Group 03, 321–329.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehrlich, K. and Shami, N.S. 2010. Microblogging inside and outside the workplace. Proc. ICWSM ‘10.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farrell, S., & Lau T. 2006. Fringe Contacts: People Tagging for the Enterprise. Workshop on Collaborative Web Tagging, WWW’ 06.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garg, S., Gupta, T., Carlsson, N., and Mahanti, A. 2009. Evolution of an online social aggregation network: an empirical study. Proc. IMC 09, 315–321.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gilbert, E. and Karahalios, K. 2009. Predicting tie strength with social media. Proc. CHI 09, 211–220.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Groh, G., and Ehmig, C. 2007. Recommendations in Taste Related Domains: Collaborative Filtering vs. Social Filtering. Proc. GROUP 07, 127–136.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta, T., Garg, S., Carlsson, N., Mahanti, A., and Arlitt, M. 2009. Characterization of Friendfeed: A web based social aggregation service. Proc. ICWSM ‘09.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guy, I., Jacovi, M., Meshulam, N., Ronen, I., Shahar, E. Public vs. private: comparing public social network information with email. Proc. CSCW 08, 393–402.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guy, I., Jacovi, M., Perer, A., Ronen, I., and Uziel, E. 2010. Same Places, Same Things, Same People? Mining User Similarity on Social Media. Proc. CSCW 10, 41–50.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guy, I., Jacovi, M., Shahar, E., Meshulam, N., Soroka, V., & Farrell, S. 2008. Harvesting with SONAR: the value of aggregating social network information. Proc. CHI 08, 1017–1026.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guy, I., Zwerdling, N., Carmel, D., Ronen, I., Uziel, E., Yogev, S., and Ofek-Koifman S. 2009. Personalized Recommendation of Social Software Items based on Social Relationships. Proc. RecSys 09, 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hibbard, C. 2010. How IBM Uses Social Media to Spur Employee Innovation. Social Media Examiner online Magazine (Feb. 2010).
  21. 21.
    Hinds, P. J., Carley, K. M., Krackhardt, D., & Wholey, D. 2000. Choosing work group members: Balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. OBHDP 81 ( 2 ), 226–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoadley, C.M., Xu, H., Lee, J.J, Rosson, M.B. 2010. Privacy as information access and illusory control: The case of the Facebook News Feed privacy outcry. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 9, 1 (Jan. 2010), 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hogg, T., Wilkinson, D., Szabo, G, and Brzozowski M. J. 2008. Multiple relationship types in online communities and social networks. Proc. AAAI Symposium on Social Information Processing.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huberman, B., Romero, D., and Wu, F. 2009. Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday 14, 1 (Jan. 2009).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huh, J., Jones, L., Erickson, T., Kellogg, W. A., Bel-lamy, R. K., and Thomas, J. C. 2007. BlogCentral: the role of internal blogs at work. Proc. CHI 07, 2447–2452.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., and Tseng, B. 2007. Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. Proc. WebKDD 07, 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., and Moon, S. 2010. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proc. WWW 10, 591–600.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lampe, C., Ellison, N. B., and Steinfield, C. 2008. Changes in use and perception of Facebook. Proc. CSCW 08, 721–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lerman, K. 2007. Social networks and social information filtering on Digg. Proc. ICWSM’07.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Matsuo, Y., Hamasaki, M. et al. Spinning multiple social networks for semantic Web. Proc. AAAI ‘06 (2006).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Naaman, M., Boase, J., and Lai, C. 2010. Is it really about me?: message content in social awareness streams. Proc. CSCW 10, 189–192.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Phelan, O., McCarthy, K., and Smyth, B. 2009. Using twitter to recommend real-time topical news. Proc. RecSys 09, 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Samper, J. J., Castillo, P. A., Araujo, L., Merelo, J. J., Cordón, í., and Tricas, F. 2008. NectaRSS, an intelligent RSS feed reader. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 31, 4 (Nov. 2008), 793–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sanghvi, R. (2006, September 5). Facebook Gets a Facelift. Retrieved January 17, 2010, from
  35. 35.
    Shami, S.N., Muller, M.J., and Millen, D.R. 2011. Browse and discover.: social file sharing in the enterprise. Proc. CSCW ‘11.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sun, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., Lento, T. 2009. Gesundheit! Modeling contagion through Facebook News Feed. Proc. ICWSM ‘09.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Xiao, J., Zhang, Y., Jia, X., & Li, T. 2001. Measuring similarity of interests for clustering webusers. Proc. ADC’01, 107–114.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhang, J., Qu, Y., Cody, J., and Wu, Y. 2010. A case study of micro-blogging in the enterprise: use, value, and related issues. Proc. CHI 10, 123–132.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhao, D. and Rosson, M. 2009. How and why people Twitter: the role that micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work. Proc. GROUP 09, 243–252Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michal Jacovi
    • 1
  • Ido Guy
    • 1
  • Inbal Ronen
    • 1
  • Adam Perer
    • 2
  • Erel Uziel
    • 1
  • Michael Maslenko
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM ResearchHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.IBM ResearchCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations