The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring user influence on Twitter: A survey
Open accessAbstract
We survey the several measures that exists in literature to rank influential users in Twitter network.We propose a classification of these measures according to different criteria, such as the kind of metrics, the use of PageRank algorithm, the use of content analysis, among others.Besides the influential users, we also study measures of activity and popularity.We finish by mentioning some aspects of this topic related with computational complexity and correlation measures. Centrality is one of the most studied concepts in social network analysis. There is a huge literature regarding centrality measures, as ways to identify the most relevant users in a social network. The challenge is to find measures that can be computed efficiently, and that can be able to classify the users according to relevance criteria as close as possible to reality. We address this problem in the context of the Twitter network, an online social networking service with millions of users and an impressive flow of messages that are published and spread daily by interactions between users. Twitter has different types of users, but the greatest utility lies in finding the most influential ones. The purpose of this article is to collect and classify the different Twitter influence measures that exist so far in literature. These measures are very diverse. Some are based on simple metrics provided by the Twitter API, while others are based on complex mathematical models. Several measures are based on the PageRank algorithm, traditionally used to rank the websites on the Internet. Some others consider the timeline of publication, others the content of the messages, some are focused on specific topics, and others try to make predictions. We consider all these aspects, and some additional ones. Furthermore, we include measures of activity and popularity, the traditional mechanisms to correlate measures, and some important aspects of computational complexity for this particular context.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification
Freeman, L. C. (1978) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7 · Cited by 17,062
The proof and measurement of association between two things
Spearman, C. (1904) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1412159 · Cited by 8,039
What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010) · Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1772690.1772751 · Cited by 6,652
Measuring user influence in twitter: The million follower fallacy
Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., & Gummadi, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v4i1.14033 · Cited by 3,022 · cited 2×
“The influential users tend to be active [20,66], but only a few active users are influential.”
BackgroundEveryone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter
Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011) · Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining · doi:10.1145/1935826.1935845 · Cited by 1,689
Comparing Twitter and Traditional Media Using Topic Models
Zhao, W. X., Jiang, J., Weng, J., He, J., Lim, E.-P., Yan, H., & Li, X. (2011) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20161-5_34 · Cited by 1,214
The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network
González-Bailón, S., Borge-Holthoefer, J., Rivero, A., & Moreno, Y. (2011) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep00197 · Cited by 571
Bianchini, M., Gori, M., & Scarselli, F. (2005) · ACM Transactions on Internet Technology · doi:10.1145/1052934.1052938 · Cited by 539
Cited by
Martínez-Rojas, M., Pardo-Ferreira, M. D. C., & Rubio-Romero, J. C. (2018) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.008 · Cited by 213
Torregrosa, J., Panizo-Lledot, Á., Bello-Orgaz, G., & Camacho, D. (2020) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-020-00676-1 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Riquelme, F., & González-Cantergiani, P.
- Venue
- Information Processing & Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-09
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 949-975
- ISSN
- 0020-0271 (ISSN-L)
- 0306-4573
- OpenAlex
- W2221728952
- Cited by
- 429
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 26.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring user influence on Twitter: A survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ipm.2016.04.003
- The paper
- Riquelme, F., & González-Cantergiani, P. (2016). Measuring user influence on Twitter: A survey. Information Processing & Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2016.04.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.