Daily updates on what I’m reading
- Best Connected Individuals Are Not the Most Influential Spreaders in Social Networks – CLIPS: "…. the importance of hubs may have been overstated, say Kitsak and pals. "In contrast to common belief, the most influential spreaders in a social network do not correspond to the best connected people or to the most central people," they say.
At first glance this seems somewhat counter intuitive but on reflection it makes perfect sense. Kitsak and co point out that there are various scenarios in which well connected hubs have little influence over the spread of information. "For example, if a hub exists at the end of a branch at the periphery of a network, it will have a minimal impact in the spreading process through the core of the network."
By contrast, "a less connected person who is strategically placed in the core of the network will have a significant effect that leads to dissemination through a large fraction of the population." The question then is how to find these influential individuals."
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
one example is where someone may have only 20 followers or subscribers but each of those, in turn, have thousands of readers, thus at first glance maybe overlooked as the numbers seem too low. as to finding them, i recall reading somewhere that twitter found it was the ratio of follower/following that was more or less stable (1:4 I believe) regardless of absolute numbers than 1:1 with thousands. dunno where I read that, sorry!
Hi Dina – I have been interested in social network theory myself. You might enjoy the book Connected, which was released late last year. In reading it I learned (consistent with your post and the article you reference) that centrality is more important in many cases than connectedness. I wrote a summary of major themes on my blog, which you can read here if you like – http://nataliehanson.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/connected-major-concepts/. Enjoy!