Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 429

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 access
Riquelme, Fabián, González-Cantergiani, Pablo·2016·Information Processing & Management

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ipm.2016.04.003

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 429

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.