Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Paywalls can be a big lift for smaller publishers. Here’s how the Shawnee Mission Post is thriving two years in
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
July 18, 2013, 11:55 a.m.

At Source, Jacob Harris notes that, as appealing as the Twitter API may be as a source of what-people-are-thinking data, it’s hardly perfect. Twitter’s demographics aren’t representative of either Internet users as a whole or the broader population, and geocoding data is sparse and inconsistent.

“But what does Twitter think?”

If you are a data journalist in a newsroom, you will hear this question sooner or later in your career. It doesn’t really matter the context—I’ve heard it asked about everything from the Academy Awards to the Westminster Dog Show to presidential debates or the death of Osama bin Laden. And why not? It certainly sounds like a great idea. Twitter is such a conversational medium, it seems like an easy way to dip into the mindset of the world to see what they think. But as with all great ideas, it’s very easy to go wrong.

I’d add that different versions of Twitter data can return different — sometimes even mutually contradictory — results, as explored in this paper by Morstatter, Pfeffer, Liu, and Carley, which notes that the results generated by Twitter’s Streaming API (which provides only a sampled subset of all tweets) and the full (expensive) Twitter firehose:

The API service has been used by many researchers, companies, and governmental institutions that want to extract knowledge in accordance with a diverse array of questions pertaining to social media. The essential drawback of the Twitter API is the lack of documentation concerning what and how much data users get. This leads researchers to question whether the sampled data is a valid representation of the overall activity on Twitter. In this work we embark on answering this question by comparing data collected using Twitter’s sampled API service with data collected using the full, albeit costly, Firehose stream that includes every single published tweet. We compare both datasets using common statistical metrics as well as metrics that allow us to compare topics, networks, and locations of tweets. The results of our work will help researchers and practitioners understand the implications of using the Streaming API.

All that’s not to say that Twitter’s not incredibly useful as a data source — lord knows we like what it does for Fuego, and few tools can provide the slice of broader sentiment it does as quickly and easily. Just be aware of its limits and be careful about assuming what it produces represents any larger reality.

Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
 
Join the 50,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Paywalls can be a big lift for smaller publishers. Here’s how the Shawnee Mission Post is thriving two years in
“Things that were on the fires-and-car-accident side of things would get a lot of pageviews, but didn’t seem to have lasting impact on the way that people live their lives around here.”
Americans are more willing to pay for local news when they know local newspapers are in trouble, a new study says
“This gap suggests a market failure — many recognize the benefit of the product to the public but are unwilling to pay for it.”
The Marshall Project, an early model for single-subject nonprofit news sites, turns five today (and got a shoutout on Jeopardy last night)
“As a former journalist, I was mindful of the power of honest storytelling. As an idealist, I felt that if only Americans knew the truth, changes would soon follow.”