Twitter-Based Study Figures Out Saddest Spots In New York City 57
Nerval's Lobster writes "A new research paper from the New England Complex Systems Institute, titled "Sentiment in New York City" (PDF), attempts to pull off something that would have been impossible—or at least mind-bogglingly difficult and time-consuming—before the invention of online social networks: figure out the block-by-block happiness level of the biggest metropolis in the United States. In order to generate their 'sentiment map' of New York City, the researchers analyzed data from 603,954 Tweets (collected via Twitter's API) organized by census block. 'This method, combined with geotagging provided by users, enables us to gauge public sentiment on extremely fine-grained spatial and temporal scales,' read the paper's abstract. The study took emoticons and word choice into account when deciding whether particular Tweets were positive or negative in sentiment. According to that flood of geotagged Tweets, people are happiest near New York City's public parks, and unhappiest near transportation hubs. Happiness increased closer to Times Square, the declined around Penn Station, the Port Authority, and the entrance to the Midtown Tunnel. People were in a better mood at night and on weekends, and more negative about the world between the hours of 9 A.M. and 12 P.M. None of this is surprising: who wouldn't be happy amidst the greenery of a public park, or borderline-suicidal while stuck in traffic or waiting for a late train? The correlation between happiness and Times Square is almost certainly due to that neighborhood's massive influx of tourists, all of them Tweeting about their vacation. But as with previous public-sentiment studies, using Twitter as a primary data source also introduces some methodology issues: for example, a flood of happy Tweets from tourists could disguise a more subdued and longstanding misery among a neighborhood's residents, many of whom probably aren't tweeting every thirty seconds about a Broadway show or the quality of Guy Fieri's food."
The entire island of Manhattan (Score:1)
Surprisingly, Ground Zero not the saddest place on Earth -- that's reserved for Wall Street.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually Twitter users are the saddest of all, except Facebook users [go.com] and to the degree those two sets overlap you have a perfect storm of self centered sadness.
Re: (Score:2)
The best day ever was when I left NYC for good.
We all feel that way about the day you left.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, some of your items are valid concerns but maybe not as much for a tourist. Iunno. We didn't find much in the way of garbage and stink except off of main roads. The noise and bustle were attractive to us, and I personally dig Bloomberg's ambi
Re: (Score:2)
Surprisingly, Ground Zero not the saddest place on Earth -- that's reserved for Wall Street.
Unlikely, given that the only thing that Wall Street likes more than money is cocaine.
Re: (Score:2)
And we all know that cocaine makes you sad.
That's why it's so addictive.
Not Tweeting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Sad and unhappy is relative. I bet an alcoholic with no job, no family, and living off the street is much happier just to have bottle of vodka than someone just one block away getting home from work at 9:30pm to their 1+ million dollar condo. Someone in the middle looking at both people would naturally assume the later is happier.
Re:Not Tweeting. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not Tweeting. (Score:4, Interesting)
I only lived there for a few years, but I noticed that some of the hot spots on the map in Manhattan were schools and hospitals.
Good for mapping political landscape though (Score:5, Interesting)
The saddest parts of New York City are not where people who own mobile devices and laptops convene. The saddest parts of New York City are where people are wearing trash bags, begging for food and shelter... They are not begging for attention by Tweeting their pretentious frivolity.
True. But I wonder how long will it be before the researchers apply the same techniques to analyse block by block the political beliefs of the residents. It may even be hyper accurate if you assume quote reasonably that :-
1. those who tweet about their political beliefs tend to be more passionate about it and are more likely to vote; and
2. those who don't are apathetic to politics and are less likely to vote.
If they can gauge something as subjective as 'happiness', gauging something more definite like the voting predisposition of the residents of an area would appear to be a simpler task.
Re: (Score:3)
That is a HUGE set of assumptions. You would need to go do some real research to find out if that was remotely valid.
Many people I know don't do social networking because it can have some pretty serious consequences and be used against you. They do vote though.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people I know don't do social networking because it can have some pretty serious consequences and be used against you. They do vote though.
Enjoy while it last. The time when voting can have pretty serious consequences and be used against you may be near.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a HUGE set of assumptions. You would need to go do some real research to find out if that was remotely valid.
That's fair. Interestingly enough, there is such a study conducted by the Indiana University, Bloomington on the correlation between voting patterns and tweets [ssrn.com]. I'll skip to the findings here:-
Re: (Score:2)
You're behind the times. Political campaigns already do that.
Re: (Score:1)
Believe it or not, beggars make a lot of money. If they get a good spot or route, they'll make a ton more than most honest living. Think several hundred a day, no taxes. Of course, it's not easy to get or keep a good spot.
The ones who are truly in need don't beg. They just are. Though usually, they're also perfectly happy being.
The druggies and alcoholics who are homeless all got sent to Cali or down south. Winters are not as cold there.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the difference between a depressed dumpster diving hipster and a depressed dumpster diving hobo is the hobo isn't getting sent a $1K a week by their beverly hill parents to spend on designer faux opshop clothing.
My guess is the hipster is actually pretty pleased with his ridiculous beard, and the hobo just can't afford a nice shave.
Re: (Score:1)
That's far from guaranteed. You'd be surprised how miserable people who have everything can be, while some people who have nothing can often laugh at their circumstances. Never judge happiness by material possessions.
False assumption (Score:5, Interesting)
This assumes that everyone uses Twitter.
It's funny, isn't it? People who are heavy users of Twitter are absolutely convinced that EVERYONE is on Twitter. Because in their tiny world, it's true. It's like when some World of Warcraft nerd starts spewing jargon in front of everyone and nobody knows what's going on...alts, tank, twitchy, whatever.
What's really frightening is how data like this is being taken seriously. Stock markets move based on Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
There are enough people using Twitter and capable of using Twitter if they wanted to that you can draw reasonable conclusions from that mass
No. All you can draw conclusions about is the people who use twitter.
Learn something about experimental design. A self selected group of narcissistic people do not define the population of NYC or any one else.
Its assertions like yours that perpetuate this nonsense that you can study some easy to get at something hard. Like looking for your dropped
keys under the street light, because its easier to see there.
Further, the fact that any 10 year old can master Twitter (as is indicated by the banality of most
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that is just my opinion, an I don't release a pretensions study and claim it applies to everyone with a mobile pbone.
Re: (Score:1)
So the basis for you thinking this study and they results are complete bullshit is only based on your opinion that Twitter users are drastically different than non Twitter users. You don't have anything to back up your claim they are different, you just "know" they are different and those inherent differences they have in fact totally skews the results.
Thanks for clearing that up.
You seem to know a lot about this. Can you give me an example of an area in their results you think would be rated differently
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry you are so ignorant of experimental design, but it's no my job to complete your education.
There's so much wrong with your argument that I scarcely know where to begin, so I won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is an enormous percentage of the population who do not use Twitter, and big chunks of that group are pretty easy to define. Anyone who doesn't have a cell phone with Internet access. Anyone who doesn't have continual Internet access on their tablet/laptop. Anyone who values their privacy. Almost everyone over the age of 50. Anyone who is too busy working/taking care of children/playing to waste the time to maintain a feed. Anyone who t
Re: (Score:2)
What study was that based on?
Here's a link [slashdot.org] to the study in question.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily .. if they're doing something equivalent to a poll where they can make predictions they might be able to paint trends.
If they're just saying "wow, there's a really happy person here it must be a happy place", not so much.
As you say, it's Twitter, and it definitely isn't representative of everybody. That doesn't mean that people don't pay attention to it for reasons I've never quite understood.
Bias (Score:2)
Not necessarily .. if they're doing something equivalent to a poll where they can make predictions
To be valid such a poll has to be a random sample of the population. In this case that is simply not true: they are selecting a sample containing only rich twits. Those without the time, inclination or money to buy a suitable device to use twitter are excluded.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the infamous headline "Dewey Defeats Truman"? How could the Chicago Daily Tribune have gotten it so wrong? Well, one reason was their polls that showed Dewey with an insurmontable lead. Polls that were conducted via telephone, back in the days when not everybody had their own phone. Turns out that people who didn't have telephones (i.e., poor people) voted very heavily for Truman.
Re: (Score:1)
"twitchy"? PLUUESE! You mean "twink"? Uneducated masses should not express their opinions on important matters!
The third link (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That article was actually very popular when it came out because it's entirely built of questions. If he had just slammed Fieri it wouldn't have gotten near as many views as it did, but because of the way it was written it appeared on sites that it never would have otherwise. It's marketing, not an English journal.
I thought the saddest part of NY was... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...no, the saddest part is seeing light at the end of the tunnel...and realizing it's NJ!
POS research (Score:1, Informative)
I really hope everyone stops reading and reporting arbitrary but easy statistics that don't prove Jack.
Obvious findings (Score:2)
Whoa whoa whoa whoa, wait a second. (Score:1)
1) I posted this yesterday afternoon [slashdot.org], which I fully understand. I shouldn't have expected to be selected. No big deal.
But really?
2) I've tweeted about enjoying Guy Fieri's food, on two [twitter.com] occasions [twitter.com]. It's actually not the worst thing ever: Fuck Pete Wells.
Same for the UK? (Score:2)
Is there any way I can go about this efficiently? The software would need to recognize the locations (Aberdeenshire, Hampshire, Surrey etc.), ask me what column and range for the colour coding I want to use, and colour a map of the UK automatically. Does anyone know if any site (maybe an app from Google?) could do this?
Here's another dataset [independent.co.uk] on UK nationwide happiness. It wo
Huh, who would have thought. . . (Score:2)
that the happiest places are near green grass and trees, not concrete and blacktop.
I would never have guessed people would be happiest when they're around some form of nature rather than jammed next to each other, having to hear every word the other person is saying or having to endure their antics.
Shocking.
Why NY? (Score:1)
discount the tourists (Score:1)
Aha! (Score:1)