Leaders in Social Networks, the Delicious Case

Abstract

Finding pertinent information is not limited to search engines. Online communities can amplify the influence of a small number of power users for the benefit of all other users. Users' information foraging in depth and breadth can be greatly enhanced by choosing suitable leaders. For instance in delicious.com, users subscribe to leaders' collection which lead to a deeper and wider reach not achievable with search engines. To consolidate such collective search, it is essential to utilize the leadership topology and identify influential users. Google's PageRank, as a successful search algorithm in the World Wide Web, turns out to be less effective in networks of people. We thus devise an adaptive and parameter-free algorithm, the LeaderRank, to quantify user influence. We show that LeaderRank outperforms PageRank in terms of ranking effectiveness, as well as robustness against manipulations and noisy data. These results suggest that leaders who are aware of their clout may reinforce the development of social networks, and thus the power of collective search.

Full text

Its licence does not allow us to show the full text. Read it at PubMed Central:

References 25

1. 1.

   Lampe C, Ellison N, Steinfield C. A Face(book) in the crowd: social searching vs. social browsing. 2006;167-170.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Vieira MV, Fonseca BM, Damazio R, Golgher PB, de Castro Reis D, et al. Efficient search ranking in social networks. 2007;563-572.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   Easley D, Kleinberg J. Networks, Crowds and Markets. 2010.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   Kleinberg J. Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. J ACM. 1999;46:604-632.

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   Park J, Newman MEJ. A network-based ranking system for US college football. J Stat Mech. 2005;P10014.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   Radicchi F, Fortunato S, Markines B, Vespignani A. Diffusion of scientific credits and the ranking of scientists. Phys Rev E. 2009;80:056103.

   Not in our library10.1103/physreve.80.056103

7. 7.

   Chen P, Xie H, Maslov S, Redner S. Finding scientific gems with Google. J Inform. 2007;1:8-15.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   Page L, Brin S, Motwani R, Winograd T. The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical Report Stanford InfoLab. 1999;1999–66.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   Brin S, Page L. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Comput Networks and ISDN Systems. 1998;30:107-117.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    Masum H, Zhang YC. Manifesto for the reputation society. First Monday. 2004;9:7.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. Collective dynamics of ‘small world’ networks. Nature. 1998;393:440-442.

    Not in our library10.1038/30918

12. 12.

    Newman MEJ. Assortative mixing in networks. Phys Rev Lett. 2002;89:208701.

    Not in our library10.1103/physrevlett.89.208701

13. 13.

    Castellano C, Fortunato S, Loreto V. Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev Mod Phys. 2009;81:591-646.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    Galam S. Minority opinion spreading in random geometry. Eur Phys J B. 2002;25:403-406.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    Pastor-Satorras R, Vespignani A. Immunization of complex networks. Phys Rev E. 2002;65:036104.

    Not in our library10.1103/physreve.65.036104

16. 16.

    Yang R, Wang BH, Ren J, Bai WJ, Shi ZW, et al. Epidemic spreading on heterogeneous networks with identical infectivity. Phys Lett A. 2007;364:189-193.

    Not in our library

17. 17.

    Guimerá R, Sales-Pardo M. Missing and spurious interactions and the reconstruction of complex networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:22073-22078.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0908366106

18. 18.

    Marsden PV. Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology. 1990;16:435-463.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    Legrain P, Wojcik J, Gauthier JM. Protein–protein interaction maps: a lead towards cellular functions. Trends in Genetics. 2001;17:346-352.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0168-9525(01)02323-x

20. 20.

    Lü L, Zhou T. Link prediction in complex networks: A survey. Physica A. 2011;390:1150-1170.

    Not in our library

21. 21.
    Disease candidate gene identification and prioritization using protein interaction networks · 2009

    Corrected
22. 22.

    Douceur JR. The Sybil Attack. 2002;251-260.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    Levine BN, Shields C, Margolin BN. A survey of solutions to the sybil attack. Technical Report of Univ of Massachussets Amherst. 2006;2006–052.

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    Gayo-Avello D. Nepotistic relationships in Twitter and their impact on rank prestige algorithms. 2010.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    Allesina S, Pascual M. Googling food webs: Can an eigenvector measure species' importance for coextinctions? PLoS Comput Bio. 2009;5:e1000494.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000494

Cited by papers we hold 5

• A node influence ranking algorithm combining k-shell iteration and node degree. · 2025
  Not checked
• Best influential spreaders identification using network global structural properties · 2021
  Not checked
• Fungal persister cells: The basis for recalcitrant infections? · 2018
  No notice
• A Data-Based Approach to Discovering Multi-Topic Influential Leaders. · 2016
  Not checked
• A Novel Top-k Strategy for Influence Maximization in Complex Networks with Community Structure. · 2015
  Not checked

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.