measure attention
Transcription
measure attention
PATTERNS OF LARGE SCALE ATTENTION Mor Naaman W/ Nir Grinberg, Minsu Park @informor PATTERNS OF LARGE SCALE ATTENTION Mor Naaman W/ Nir Grinberg, Minsu Park @informor CONNECTED EXPERIENCES LABORATORY 4 5 Veit et al., ICCV 2016 7 8 Open Questions ? Forms of Inputs ? ? ? Cx Connector App ? ? Contexts for Sharing 10 11 AOL/CX: FIRST STEPS 12 Attention. “A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.” — Herbert Simon 14 Capturing Attention TRENDS IN ATTENTION competition opportunities/tools for capture mined in physical world 20 TRENDS IN ATTENTION using finer attention models 21 PAYING ATTENTION TO ATTENTION 22 STUDY 1: HOW DO PEOPLE READ (PAY ATTENTION TO) ONLINE MEDIA STORIES? 23 43% 65% What are the key factors that influence reading depth? Why do some articles perform better than others? 26 MEASURE ATTENTION: BENEFITS understand engagement rank content fight clickbait 27 MEASURE ATTENTION: BENEFITS reason about cognition, language predict and understand content success 28 DATASET 2.3M read events from Chartbeat 9 popular news/media sites For each event: Page metadata User ID Reading depth 29 What does it look like? Scrolling Known Unknown 8000 6000 CQR 504 Depth (pixels) DnB 780 DiW 603 4000 BjW 559 2000 BFO 323 0 0 60 120 Time (sec) 180 240 300 MEASURING: MAXIMUM DEPTH (PROPORTION) : 44.3% B : 31.3% C : 24.3% 0.3 0.2 0.1 A B 0.0 % readers 0.4 0.5 A C A 20 40 60 80 100 32 Device differences? mobile tablet desktop Prob. Density Function 2 1 0 Financial, N=5064 2 1 0 2 1 0 0% Sports, N=5916 Magazine, N=4602 25% 50% % Read 75% 100% Figure 3: Distribution of read proportion for the same articles on mobile (red), tablet (green) and Referral source? h? ce et non hs he at ty 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 news search social no ref. Prob. Density Function rt 4 d same articles on mobile (red), tablet (green) and desktop (blue) devices for 3 exemplary sites. Financial, N=1900 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0% Sports, N=2360 Magazine, N=564 25% 50% % Read 75% 100% Figure 4: Distribution of read proportion for the same articles of readers coming from News (red), search (green), social (tile) and no referrer (purple) Can we predict? Can we predict? - article's average reading depth - depth of individual read event MODEL 1 (PRE PUBLICATION) length readability Sentiment site author topic read depth 39 SOME CONTRIBUTING FEATURES… Length ↓ Author’s historical average ↑ Reading score ↓ Topics: Sports ↑ Science ↓ 40 TAKEAWAY: READING DEPTH/ATTENTION IS (SOMEWHAT) PREDICTABLE FROM SOURCE AND CONTEXTUAL CUES 41 FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS Better attention model (reading? skimming? skipping??) Language and attention Narrative and attention Engagement with other media (YouTube) 42 STUDY 2: HOW DO PEOPLE WATCH (PAY ATTENTION TO) ONLINE VIDEO? 43 TWO DIFFERENT DATASETS Random YouTube videos, average view duration Tracking users, view time for each video they looked at 45 FOR EACH VIDEO… actual duration views # comments like ratio language (sentiment) of comments like/views, comments/views, share/view … 46 50% viewed MIXED-EFFECTS LINEAR REGRESSION Control for category (humor vs. education) Control for user 48 SOME EARLY RESULTS - Length matters (obv) - Positive association with view count (thank god) - Positive association with like/view ratio (good) - Negative attitudes matter too: Negative language in comments pos. correlated No impact of like/dislike ratio 49 50 TAKEAWAY: PROPORTION WATCHED IS ASSOCIATED WITH CONTEXTUAL CUES 51 PAYING ATTENTION TO ATTENTION 52 [email protected] http://mornaaman.com @informor