Towards Demarcation and Modeling of Small Sub-Communities/Groups in P2P Social Networks

In centralized virtual social networking platforms, models for sub-structures like sub-communities or groups such as Facebook's groups exist. We investigate in how far these declared groups are dense sub-networks in a study using declared groups in a German Facebook clone (StudiVZ) as an example. While many such groups are large and sparse ``pseudo´´-structures which should be seen as labels or tags for profile extension, the result of the study is that a substantial share of these declared groups (especially the smaller ones) have a high network density with respect to various measures of density. We conclude that these can be considered socially ``valid´´ models of sub-structures (groups, small sub-communities etc.). In a second line of thought we argue that decentralized / Peer-to-Peer Social Networking appears to be a very promising answer to the problem of many co-existing virtual social network platforms and the resulting problems of having to keep multiple identities and not being able to access the network overlapping the platform boundaries in a coherent manner. Both argumentations together imply that a suitable approach for modeling and demarcating sub-structures (e.g. sub-communities) in decentralized P2P social networking is necessary. We conclude by discussing candidate approaches for the problem.

[1]  Georg Groh,et al.  Recommendations in taste related domains: collaborative filtering vs. social filtering , 2007, GROUP.

[2]  Klaus Wehrle,et al.  Peer-to-Peer Systems and Applications , 2005, Peer-to-Peer Systems and Applications.

[3]  P. Kollock,et al.  Virtual communities as communities , 2002 .

[4]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[5]  D. Watts,et al.  An Experimental Study of Search in Global Social Networks , 2003, Science.

[6]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[7]  Sharon L. Milgram,et al.  The Small World Problem , 1967 .

[8]  M E J Newman,et al.  Community structure in social and biological networks , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Lorenz Fischer,et al.  Grundlagen der Sozialpsychologie , 2009 .

[10]  D. Watts Networks, Dynamics, and the Small‐World Phenomenon1 , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  Georg Groh,et al.  Groups and Group-Instantiations in Mobile Communities - Detection, Modeling and Applications , 2007, ICWSM.

[12]  Jasmine Novak,et al.  Geographic routing in social networks , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[13]  H. Joas Lehrbuch der Soziologie , 2007 .

[14]  Sven Kosub,et al.  Local Density , 2004, Network Analysis.

[15]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  The small-world phenomenon: an algorithmic perspective , 2000, STOC '00.

[16]  E. Todeva Networks , 2007 .

[17]  David D. Jensen,et al.  Creating social networks to improve peer-to-peer networking , 2005, KDD '05.

[18]  Fang Wang,et al.  Structure of peer-to-peer social networks. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[19]  Detlef Schoder,et al.  Core Concepts in Peer-to-Peer Networking , 2005 .

[20]  M. Newman,et al.  Why social networks are different from other types of networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[21]  S H Strogatz,et al.  Random graph models of social networks , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.