skip to main content
research-article

Exploring the Emerging Type of Comment for Online Videos: DanMu

Authors Info & Claims
Published:21 August 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

DanMu, an emerging type of user-generated comment, has become increasingly popular in recent years. Many online video platforms such as Tudou.com have provided the DanMu function. Unlike traditional online reviews such as reviews at Youtube.com that are outside the videos, DanMu is a scrolling marquee comment, which is overlaid directly on top of the video and synchronized to a specific playback time. Such comments are displayed as streams of moving subtitles overlaid on the video screen. Viewers could easily write DanMus while watching videos, and the written DanMus will be immediately overlaid onto the video and displayed to writers themselves and other viewers as well. Such DanMu systems have greatly enabled users to communicate with each other in a much more direct way, creating a real-time sharing experience. Although there are several unique features of DanMu and has had a great impact on online video systems, to the best of our knowledge, there is no work that has provided a comprehensive study on DanMu. In this article, as a pilot study, we analyze the unique characteristics of DanMu from various perspectives. Specifically, we first illustrate some unique distributions of DanMus by comparing with traditional reviews (TReviews) that we collected from a real DanMu-enabled online video system. Second, we discover two interesting patterns in DanMu data: a herding effect and multiple-burst phenomena that are significantly different from those in TRviews and reveal important insights about the growth of DanMus on a video. Towards exploring antecedents of both th herding effect and multiple-burst phenomena, we propose to further detect leading DanMus within bursts, because those leading DanMus make the most contribution to both patterns. A framework is proposed to detect leading DanMus that effectively combines multiple factors contributing to leading DanMus. Based on the identified characteristics of DanMu, finally we propose to predict the distribution of future DanMus (i.e., the growth of DanMus), which is important for many DanMu-enabled online video systems, for example, the predicted DanMu distribution could be an indicator of video popularity. This prediction task includes two aspects: One is to predict which videos future DanMus will be posted for, and the other one is to predict which segments of a video future DanMus will be posted on. We develop two sophisticated models to solve both problems. Finally, intensive experiments are conducted with a real-world dataset to validate all methods developed in this article.

References

  1. Maria Andersson, Carmen Lee, Ted Martin Hedesström, and Tommy Gärling. 2006. Effects of reward system on herding in a simulated financial market. Interaction on the Edge (2006), 12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Abhijit V. Banerjee. 1992. A simple model of herd behavior. Quart. J. Econ. 107, 3 (1992), 797--817.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Albert-László Barabási and Réka Albert. 1999. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286, 5439 (1999), 509--512.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Youmna Borghol, Sebastien Ardon, Niklas Carlsson, Derek Eager, and Anirban Mahanti. 2012. The untold story of the clones: Content-agnostic factors that impact youtube video popularity. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 1186--1194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Meeyoung Cha, Haewoon Kwak, Pablo Rodriguez, Yong-Yeol Ahn, and Sue Moon. 2009a. Analyzing the video popularity characteristics of large-scale user generated content systems. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 17, 5 (2009), 1357--1370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Meeyoung Cha, Alan Mislove, and Krishna P. Gummadi. 2009b. A measurement-driven analysis of information propagation in the flickr social network. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 721--730. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Kenny K. Chan and Shekhar Misra. 1990. Characteristics of the opinion leader: A new dimension. J. Advert. 19 (1990), 53--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. William G. Christie and Roger D. Huang. 1995. Following the pied piper: Do individual returns herd around the market? Financ. Analyst. J. 51, 4 (1995), 31--37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Aaron Clauset, Cosma Rohilla Shalizi, and Mark E. J. Newman. 2009. Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev. 51, 4 (2009), 661--703. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jacob Cohen, Patricia Cohen, Stephen G. West, and Leona S Aiken. 2013. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Flavio Figueiredo, Fabrício Benevenuto, and Jussara M. Almeida. 2011. The tube over time: Characterizing popularity growth of youtube videos. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 745--754. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Joshua Hawthorne, J. Brian Houston, and Mitchell S. McKinney. 2013. Live-tweeting a presidential primary debate: Exploring new political conversations. Social Science Computer Review 31, 5 (2013), 552--562. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. John D. Hey and Andrea Morone. 2004. Do markets drive out lemmings or vice versa? Economica 71, 284 (2004), 637--659.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Sandra Hsieh, Yang Yu Tai, and Tam Bang Vu. 2008. Do herding behavior and positive feedback effects influence capital inflows? Evidence from Asia and Latin America. Int. J. Bus. Financ. Res. 2, 2 (2008), 19--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Andreas Jungherr. 2015. The media connection. In Analyzing Political Communication with Digital Trace Data. Springer, 155--188.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jon Kleinberg. 2003. Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 7, 4 (2003), 373--397. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Feng Li and Timon C Du. 2011. Who is talking? An ontology-based opinion leader identification framework for word-of-mouth marketing in online social blogs. Decision Support Syst. 51, 1 (2011), 190--197. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Huayu Li, Yong Ge, Richang Hong, and Hengshu Zhu. 2016. Point-of-interest recommendations: Learning potential check-ins from friends. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 975--984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Huayu Li, Richang Hong, Shiai Zhu, and Yong Ge. 2015. Point-of-interest recommender systems: A separate-space perspective. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM’15). 231--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Qi Liu, Enhong Chen, Hui Xiong, Chris H. Q. Ding, and Jian Chen. 2012. Enhancing collaborative filtering by user interest expansion via personalized ranking. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. B 42, 1 (2012), 218--233. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Qi Liu, Yong Ge, Zhongmou Li, Enhong Chen, and Hui Xiong. 2011. Personalized travel package recommendation. In 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM’11). IEEE, 407--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Guangyi Lv, Tong Xu, Enhong Chen, Qi Liu, and Yi Zheng. 2016. Reading the videos: Temporal labeling for crowdsourced time-sync videos based on semantic embedding. In Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Naohiro Matsumura, Yukio Ohsawa, and Mitsuru Ishizuka. 2002. Mining and characterizing opinion leaders from threaded online discussions. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Knowledge-Based Intelligent Engineering Systems 8 Allied Technologies. 1267--1270.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Seungwhan Moon, Saloni Potdar, and Lara Martin. 2014. Identifying student leaders from MOOC discussion forums through language influence. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP’14). 15--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. K. G. M. Moons, A. Rogier T. Donders, E. W. Steyerberg, and F. E. Harrell. 2004. Penalized maximum likelihood estimation to directly adjust diagnostic and prognostic prediction models for overoptimism: A clinical example. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 57, 12 (2004), 1262--1270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Júnia Ortiz, Solange Hamrin, Camilo Aggio, and Edson Dalmonte. 2015. Television experience and political discussion on Twitter: Exploring online conversations during the 2014 Brazilian presidential elections. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. G. Palshikar and others. 2009. Simple algorithms for peak detection in time-series. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Advanced Data Analysis, Business Analytics and Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. A. Sboner, A. Romanel, A. Malossini, F. Ciocchetta, F. Demichelis, I. Azzini, E. Blanzieri, and R. Dell Anna. 2007. Simple methods for peak and valley detection in time series microarray data. In Methods of Microarray Data Analysis V. Springer, 27--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Xiaodan Song, Yun Chi, Koji Hino, and Belle Tseng. 2007. Identifying opinion leaders in the blogosphere. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 971--974. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Gabor Szabo and Bernardo A. Huberman. 2010. Predicting the popularity of online content. Commun. ACM 53, 8 (2010), 80--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Damian Trilling. 2015. Two different debates? Investigating the relationship between a political debate on TV and simultaneous comments on Twitter. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 33, 3 (2015), 259--276. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Michail Vlachos, Christopher Meek, Zografoula Vagena, and Dimitrios Gunopulos. 2004. Identifying similarities, periodicities and bursts for online search queries. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, 131--142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Ting Wang, Dashun Wang, and Fei Wang. 2014. Quantifying herding effects in crowd wisdom. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 1087--1096. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Ivo Welch. 2000. Herding among security analysts. J. Financ. Econom. 58, 3 (2000), 369--396.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Bin Wu, Erheng Zhong, Ben Tan, Andrew Horner, and Qiang Yang. 2014. Crowdsourced time-sync video tagging using temporal and personalized topic modeling. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 721--730. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Le Wu, Yong Ge, Qi Liu, Enhong Chen, Richang Hong, Junping Du, and Meng Wang. 2017. Modeling the evolution of users preferences and social links in social networking services. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 29, 6 (2017), 1240--1253. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Zechen Wu and Eisuke Ito. 2014. Correlation analysis between user’s emotional comments and popularity measures. In Proceedings of the 2014 IIAI 3rd International Conference on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAIAAI’14). IEEE, 280--283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Xiao Yu, Xu Wei, and Xia Lin. 2010. Algorithms of BBS opinion leader mining based on sentiment analysis. In Web Information Systems and Mining. Springer, 360--369. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Stelios H. Zanakis, Anthony Solomon, Nicole Wishart, and Sandipa Dublish. 1998. Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. Eur. J. Operat. Res. 107, 3 (1998), 507--529.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Zhou Zhao, Hanqing Lu, Deng Cai, Xiaofei He, and Yueting Zhuang. 2016. User preference learning for online social recommendation. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 28, 9 (2016), 2522--2534. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Ke Zhou, Hongyuan Zha, and Le Song. 2013. Learning triggering kernels for multi-dimensional Hawkes processes. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML’13). 1301--1309. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Yunyue Zhu and Dennis Shasha. 2003. Efficient elastic burst detection in data streams. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 336--345. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Exploring the Emerging Type of Comment for Online Videos: DanMu

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            • Published in

              cover image ACM Transactions on the Web
              ACM Transactions on the Web  Volume 12, Issue 1
              February 2018
              169 pages
              ISSN:1559-1131
              EISSN:1559-114X
              DOI:10.1145/3133955
              Issue’s Table of Contents

              Copyright © 2017 ACM

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 21 August 2017
              • Accepted: 1 May 2017
              • Revised: 1 February 2017
              • Received: 1 December 2015
              Published in tweb Volume 12, Issue 1

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader
            About Cookies On This Site

            We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

            Learn more

            Got it!