I'm curious about how these classifications were done. I graduated from the MIT Media Lab a few years back, and after looking through the result set titled:
"A small community of users associated with MIT Media lab detected using the algorithm after 7th iteration"
I saw a handful of MIT undergrads listed, many of which I'm certain had no affiliation with the Media lab, while nearly all of the others I do not recognize, even as an active Twitter user. I chose two random entries from this list: 'RFheargaile' and 'realduedate', and found both to be of extremely dubious authenticity.
I agree they are not very high confidence classifications.
Due to random nature of the algorithm, It is very hard to correctly label a community.
Also since for most users explicit permission to follow is not required which leads to dubious/spam users. Since the data was collected in June 2009, it is possible that a lot of users might have blocked spam profiles from following them.
5 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 22.7 ms ] thread"A small community of users associated with MIT Media lab detected using the algorithm after 7th iteration"
I saw a handful of MIT undergrads listed, many of which I'm certain had no affiliation with the Media lab, while nearly all of the others I do not recognize, even as an active Twitter user. I chose two random entries from this list: 'RFheargaile' and 'realduedate', and found both to be of extremely dubious authenticity.
I guess I need to clarify this point.