Beautiful and Damned. Combined Effect of Content Quality and Social Ties on User Engagement

User participation in online communities is driven by the intertwinement of the social network structure with the crowd-generated content that flows along its links. These aspects are rarely explored jointly and at scale. By looking at how users generate and access pictures of varying beauty on Flickr, we investigate how the production of quality impacts the dynamics of online social systems. We develop a deep learning computer vision model to score images according to their aesthetic value and we validate its output through crowdsourcing. By applying it to over 15 B Flickr photos, we study for the first time how image beauty is distributed over a large-scale social system. Beautiful images are evenly distributed in the network, although only a small core of people get social recognition for them. To study the impact of exposure to quality on user engagement, we set up matching experiments aimed at detecting causality from observational data. Exposure to beauty is double-edged: following people who produce high-quality content increases one’s probability of uploading better photos; however, an excessive imbalance between the quality generated by a user and the user’s neighbors leads to a decline in engagement. Our analysis has practical implications for improving link recommender systems.

[1]  P. Blau Exchange and Power in Social Life , 1964 .

[2]  M. Hagen,et al.  Cultural Effects on Pictorial Perception: How Many Words Is One Picture Really Worth? , 1978 .

[3]  A. P. Dawid,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Observer Error‐Rates Using the EM Algorithm , 1979 .

[4]  S. Feld Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do , 1991, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  J. Russell Is there universal recognition of emotion from facial expression? A review of the cross-cultural studies. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  D. Altman,et al.  Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha , 1997 .

[7]  T. Shakespeare,et al.  Observational Studies , 2003 .

[8]  Allan Kuchinsky,et al.  Quality is in the eye of the beholder: meeting users' requirements for Internet quality of service , 2000, CHI.

[9]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic , 2000 .

[10]  Noam Tractinsky,et al.  Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites , 2004 .

[11]  D. Rubin Using Propensity Scores to Help Design Observational Studies: Application to the Tobacco Litigation , 2001, Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology.

[12]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Determining Causes and Severity of End-User Frustration , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[13]  Stephen R. Gulliver,et al.  Defining user perception of distributed multimedia quality , 2006, TOMCCAP.

[14]  Yan Ke,et al.  The Design of High-Level Features for Photo Quality Assessment , 2006, 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06).

[15]  James Ze Wang,et al.  Studying Aesthetics in Photographic Images Using a Computational Approach , 2006, ECCV.

[16]  A. D. Angeli,et al.  Interaction, usability and aesthetics: what influences users' preferences? , 2006, DIS '06.

[17]  K. Dewar,et al.  Photographic Images, Culture, and Perception in Tourism Advertising , 2007 .

[18]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Measurement and analysis of online social networks , 2007, IMC '07.

[19]  Michael Freeman,et al.  The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos , 2007 .

[20]  Martin Halvey,et al.  Exploring social dynamics in online media sharing , 2007, WWW '07.

[21]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Dynamical Processes on Complex Networks , 2008 .

[22]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Feedback effects between similarity and social influence in online communities , 2008, KDD.

[23]  Ravi Kumar,et al.  Influence and correlation in social networks , 2008, KDD.

[24]  Xiaoou Tang,et al.  Photo and Video Quality Evaluation: Focusing on the Subject , 2008, ECCV.

[25]  Keiji Yanai,et al.  Mining cultural differences from a large number of geotagged photos , 2009, WWW '09.

[26]  Arun Sundararajan,et al.  Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Nuria Oliver,et al.  The role of tags and image aesthetics in social image search , 2009, WSM '09.

[28]  Rossano Schifanella,et al.  Folks in Folksonomies: social link prediction from shared metadata , 2010, WSDM '10.

[29]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy , 2010, ICWSM.

[30]  Allan Hanbury,et al.  Affective image classification using features inspired by psychology and art theory , 2010, ACM Multimedia.

[31]  Elizabeth A Stuart,et al.  Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. , 2010, Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics.

[32]  Gabriela Csurka,et al.  Assessing the aesthetic quality of photographs using generic image descriptors , 2011, 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision.

[33]  Vyas Sekar,et al.  Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement , 2011, SIGCOMM.

[34]  Xiaogang Wang,et al.  Content-based photo quality assessment , 2011, 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision.

[35]  Vicente Ordonez,et al.  High level describable attributes for predicting aesthetics and interestingness , 2011, CVPR 2011.

[36]  Jun Gao,et al.  Learning to predict the perceived visual quality of photos , 2011, 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision.

[37]  Cosma Rohilla Shalizi,et al.  Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies , 2010, Sociological methods & research.

[38]  Jianxiong Xiao,et al.  What makes an image memorable? , 2011, CVPR 2011.

[39]  Masashi Nishiyama,et al.  Aesthetic quality classification of photographs based on color harmony , 2011, CVPR 2011.

[40]  Yong Tan,et al.  Social Networks and the Diffusion of User-Generated Content: Evidence from YouTube , 2012, Inf. Syst. Res..

[41]  Bernard Mérialdo,et al.  Where is the beauty?: retrieving appealing VideoScenes by learning Flickr-based graded judgments , 2012, ACM Multimedia.

[42]  Naila Murray,et al.  AVA: A large-scale database for aesthetic visual analysis , 2012, 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[43]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[44]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The role of social networks in information diffusion , 2012, WWW.

[45]  Siddharth Suri,et al.  Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[46]  Nuria Oliver,et al.  Towards Category-Based Aesthetic Models of Photographs , 2012, MMM.

[47]  Rossano Schifanella,et al.  Friendship prediction and homophily in social media , 2012, TWEB.

[48]  Wei-Ta Chu,et al.  Size does matter: how image size affects aesthetic perception? , 2013, MM '13.

[49]  Xiangyang Xue,et al.  Understanding and Predicting Interestingness of Videos , 2013, AAAI.

[50]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  Friendship Paradox Redux: Your Friends Are More Interesting Than You , 2013, ICWSM.

[51]  Pavel Korshunov,et al.  Crowdsourcing-based multimedia subjective evaluations: a case study on image recognizability and aesthetic appeal , 2013, CrowdMM '13.

[52]  Judith Redi,et al.  Beauty is in the scale of the beholder: Comparison of methodologies for the subjective assessment of image aesthetic appeal , 2014, 2014 Sixth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).

[53]  Trevor Darrell,et al.  Rich Feature Hierarchies for Accurate Object Detection and Semantic Segmentation , 2013, 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[54]  Rossano Schifanella,et al.  6 Seconds of Sound and Vision: Creativity in Micro-videos , 2014, 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[55]  Tao Xiang,et al.  Interestingness Prediction by Robust Learning to Rank , 2014, ECCV.

[56]  James Zijun Wang,et al.  RAPID: Rating Pictorial Aesthetics using Deep Learning , 2014, ACM Multimedia.

[57]  Rossano Schifanella,et al.  An Image Is Worth More than a Thousand Favorites: Surfacing the Hidden Beauty of Flickr Pictures , 2015, ICWSM.

[58]  Miriam Redi,et al.  The beauty of capturing faces: Rating the quality of digital portraits , 2015, 2015 11th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG).

[59]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge , 2014, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[60]  Yale Song,et al.  To Click or Not To Click: Automatic Selection of Beautiful Thumbnails from Videos , 2016, CIKM.

[61]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  The "Majority Illusion" in Social Networks , 2015, PloS one.

[62]  Xin Jin,et al.  Deep image aesthetics classification using inception modules and fine-tuning connected layer , 2016, 2016 8th International Conference on Wireless Communications & Signal Processing (WCSP).

[63]  David A. Shamma,et al.  YFCC100M , 2015, Commun. ACM.

[64]  Radomír Mech,et al.  Photo Aesthetics Ranking Network with Attributes and Content Adaptation , 2016, ECCV.

[65]  Ke Zhou,et al.  Predicting Pre-click Quality for Native Advertisements , 2016, WWW.

[66]  Hailin Jin,et al.  Composition-Preserving Deep Photo Aesthetics Assessment , 2016, 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[67]  Sharad Goel,et al.  The Effect of Recommendations on Network Structure , 2016, WWW.

[68]  Emre Kiciman,et al.  Distilling the Outcomes of Personal Experiences: A Propensity-scored Analysis of Social Media , 2017, CSCW.

[69]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Online Actions with Offline Impact: How Online Social Networks Influence Online and Offline User Behavior , 2016, WSDM.

[70]  Reginald B. Adams,et al.  Probabilistic Multigraph Modeling for Improving the Quality of Crowdsourced Affective Data , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing.