Opinion data generated by humans in real time presents tremendous opportunities. However, big social data will only prove useful to the extent that it is valid. This section tackles the extent to which socially generated data can be used to accurately measure individual and/or group-level opinions head-on.
One potential indicator of the validity of socially generated data is the extent of its consumption for factual content. Online media has expanded significantly over the past 20 years. For example, online news is displacing print and broadcast. More and more Americans distrust mainstream media, with a majority (60 percent) now having little to no faith in traditional media to report news fully, accurately, and fairly. Instead, people are increasingly turning to the Internet to research, connect, and share opinions and views. This was especially evident during the 2012 election where social media played a large role in information transmission (Gallup).
Politics is not the only realm affected by social Big Data. People are increasingly relying on the opinions of others to inform about their consumption preferences. Let's have a look at this:
- 91 percent of people report having gone into a store because of an online experience
- 89 percent of consumers conduct research using search engines
- 62 percent of consumers end up making a purchase in a store after researching it online
- 72 percent of consumers trust online reviews as much as personal recommendations
- 78 percent of consumers say that posts made by companies on social media influence their purchases
If individuals are willing to use social data as a touchstone for decision making in their own lives, perhaps this is prima facie evidence of its validity. Other Big Data thinkers point out that much of what people do online constitutes their genuine actions and intentions. The breadcrumbs left from when people execute online transactions, send messages, or spend time on web pages constitute what Alex Petland of MIT calls honest signals. These signals are honest insofar as they are actions taken by people with no subtext or secondary intent. Specifically, he writes the following:
"Those breadcrumbs tell the story of your life. It tells what you've chosen to do. That's very different than what you put on Facebook. What you put on Facebook is what you would like to tell people, edited according to the standards of the day. Who you actually are is determined by where you spend time, and which things you buy."
To paraphrase, Petland finds some web-based data to be valid measures of people's attitudes when that data is without subtext or secondary intent; what he calls data exhaust. In other words, actions are harder to fake than words. He cautions against taking people's online statements at face value, because they may be nothing more than cheap talk.
Anthony Stefanidis of George Mason University also advocates for the use of social data mining. He favorably speaks about its reliability, noting that its size inherently creates a preponderance of evidence. This book takes neither the strong position of Pentland and honest signals nor Stefanidis and preponderance of evidence. Instead, we advocate a blended approach of curiosity and creativity as well as some healthy skepticism.
Generally, we follow the attitude of Charles Handy (The Empty Raincoat, 1994), who described the steps to measurement during the Vietnam War as follows:
"The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can't be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide."
The social web may not consist of perfect data, but its value is tremendous if used properly and analyzed with care. 40 years ago, a social science study containing millions of observations was unheard of due to the time and cost associated with collecting that much information. The most successful efforts in social data mining will be by those who "measure (all) what is measurable, and make measurable (all) what is not so" (Rasinkinski, 2008).
Ultimately, we feel that the size and scope of big social data, the fact that some of it is comprised of honest signals, and the fact that some of it can be validated with other data, lends it validity. In another sense, the "proof is in the pudding". Businesses, governments, and organizations are already using social media mining to good effect; thus, the data being mined must be at least moderately useful.
Another defining characteristic of big social data is the speed with which it is generated, especially when considered against traditional media channels. Social media platforms such as Twitter, but also the web generally, spread news in near-instant bursts. From the perspective of social media mining, this speed may be a blessing or a curse. On the one hand, analysts can keep up with the very fast-moving trends and patterns, if necessary. On the other hand, fast-moving information is subject to mistakes or even abuse.
Following the tragic bombings in Boston, Massachusetts (April 15, 2013), Twitter was instrumental in citizen reporting and provided insight into the events as they unfolded. Law enforcement asked for and received help from general public, facilitated by social media. For example, Reddit saw an overall peak in traffic when reports came in that the second suspect was captured. Google Analytics reports that there were about 272,000 users on the site with 85,000 in the news update thread alone. This was the only time in Reddit's history other than Obama AMA that a thread beat the front page in the ratings (Reddit).
The downside of this fast-paced, highly visible public search is that masses can be incorrect. This is exactly what happened; users began to look at the details and photos posted and pieced together their own investigation—as it turned out, the information was incorrect. This was a charged event and created an atmosphere that ultimately undermined the good intentions of many. Other efforts such as those by governments (Wikipedia) and companies (Forbes) to post messages favorable to their position is less than well intentioned. Overall, we should be skeptical of tactical (that is, very real time) uses of social media. However, as evidence and information are aggregated by social media, we expect certain types of data, especially opinions and sentiments, to converge towards the truth (subject to the caveats set out in Chapter 4, Potentials and Pitfalls of Social Media Data).