Offense: Planetary-Scale Views on a Large Instant Messaging Network J. Leskovec, et al.
As a whole… Provides a strong analysis Considers a variety of approaches However, it falls prey to a number of critical pitfalls Provides a strong analysis Considers a variety of approaches However, it falls prey to a number of critical pitfalls
The Data Set Only includes data from MSN Messenger Other networks may have different usage patterns Paper suggests MSN accounts for ~50% at the time (seems to be correct) Each network could draw an entirely different type of user (CompuServe vs. AOL) What about spam/bots? Are these a relevant portion? Only includes data from MSN Messenger Other networks may have different usage patterns Paper suggests MSN accounts for ~50% at the time (seems to be correct) Each network could draw an entirely different type of user (CompuServe vs. AOL) What about spam/bots? Are these a relevant portion?
Communication Demographics Only look at ages 10-60, to correct for any misrepresented ages Any theoretical backing? Conversations depend only on number of messages What about non-symmetric conversations? (one user sending messages, another not replying) Only look at ages 10-60, to correct for any misrepresented ages Any theoretical backing? Conversations depend only on number of messages What about non-symmetric conversations? (one user sending messages, another not replying)
World Geography and Communication Show us distribution of MSN users by World population What does this really tell us? Better to instead look per capita to computer users? Perhaps internet use? Would take into account areas where no one is on the internet and therefore not on MSN Show us distribution of MSN users by World population What does this really tell us? Better to instead look per capita to computer users? Perhaps internet use? Would take into account areas where no one is on the internet and therefore not on MSN
The Communication Network Only consider those who communicated during time period A limitation of the data set Doesn’t acknowledge the possibility of large amounts of potential links that were just not active during the month Really need a larger data set to deal with this Only consider those who communicated during time period A limitation of the data set Doesn’t acknowledge the possibility of large amounts of potential links that were just not active during the month Really need a larger data set to deal with this
Milgram Data is not actually comparable to Milgram’s! Milgram focused on drawing connections with a letter These connections are more incidental (based around some sort of social network, but are not “focused” in the same way) Many people may be “on a first name basis” with someone, but just not normally talk to them Data is not actually comparable to Milgram’s! Milgram focused on drawing connections with a letter These connections are more incidental (based around some sort of social network, but are not “focused” in the same way) Many people may be “on a first name basis” with someone, but just not normally talk to them
Milgram Temporally incomparability This data relies only on 1 month of communication In Milgram’s study, people could use anyone that they knew on a first name basis A whole lifetime! Implication: MSN may be much better connected than these results show! Temporally incomparability This data relies only on 1 month of communication In Milgram’s study, people could use anyone that they knew on a first name basis A whole lifetime! Implication: MSN may be much better connected than these results show!
A Purpose? All this information is good to know But what can we really do with it? Generally speaking, seems people use it as an extension of their real world networks Experiment like this unable to describe any motivation, which would be helpful All this information is good to know But what can we really do with it? Generally speaking, seems people use it as an extension of their real world networks Experiment like this unable to describe any motivation, which would be helpful