Last week I mapped the Twitter follow network of those attending the Political Networks Conference in Boulder, CO. I gathered this data prior to the first day of the conference, so I decided to take a second look now that the conference is over.
How does the post-conference graph differ from the pre-conference graph?
- The first notable difference is the addition of 18 new nodes. The size of the network grew by over 50% as new Twitter users decided to follow @PolNetworks during the conference.
- Another difference is the addition of 215 new follow edges. With only 181 edges in the original graph, the number of follow relationships in the network grew more than 100%.
- The account with the biggest increase in followers was @krmckelv. Karissa went from only 1 follower to 8. (She has since changed her Twitter handle to @karissamckelvey.)
Now let’s limit the post-conference graph to a subgraph containing only those nodes that were also in the pre-conference graph. How has this component changed?
Graph Density: Increased 0.03 from 0.15 to 0.18.
Graph Transitivity: Decreased 0.03 from 0.56 to 0.53.
Graph Efficiency: Decreased 0.02 from 0.87 to 0.85.
So new follow edges were added (density), but in a way that more incomplete than complete triangles were formed (transitivity). Not surprisingly, the new ties were redundant in connecting the graph, lowering efficiency.
Here are some individual-level statistics for the interested. It was great to get to know many of you at the conference, and I’ll see you at the next one!
|Account||In Degree||Out Degree||Eig. Centrality|
Download edge list as .xlsx: polnetworks2_edge_list