IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i3p864-d314348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Story of Goldilocks and Three Twitter’s APIs: A Pilot Study on Twitter Data Sources and Disclosure

Author

Listed:
  • Yoonsang Kim

    (Social Data Collaboratory, Public Health, NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60603, USA)

  • Rachel Nordgren

    (Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA)

  • Sherry Emery

    (Social Data Collaboratory, Public Health, NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60603, USA)

Abstract

Public health and social science increasingly use Twitter for behavioral and marketing surveillance. However, few studies provide sufficient detail about Twitter data collection to allow either direct comparisons between studies or to support replication. The three primary application programming interfaces (API) of Twitter data sources are Streaming, Search, and Firehose. To date, no clear guidance exists about the advantages and limitations of each API, or about the comparability of the amount, content, and user accounts of retrieved tweets from each API. Such information is crucial to the validity, interpretation, and replicability of research findings. This study examines whether tweets collected using the same search filters over the same time period, but calling different APIs, would retrieve comparable datasets. We collected tweets about anti-smoking, e-cigarettes, and tobacco using the aforementioned APIs. The retrieved tweets largely overlapped between three APIs, but each also retrieved unique tweets, and the extent of overlap varied over time and by topic, resulting in different trends and potentially supporting diverging inferences. Researchers need to understand how different data sources can influence both the amount, content, and user accounts of data they retrieve from social media, in order to assess the implications of their choice of data source.

Suggested Citation

  • Yoonsang Kim & Rachel Nordgren & Sherry Emery, 2020. "The Story of Goldilocks and Three Twitter’s APIs: A Pilot Study on Twitter Data Sources and Disclosure," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:3:p:864-:d:314348
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/864/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/864/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert M. Bond & Christopher J. Fariss & Jason J. Jones & Adam D. I. Kramer & Cameron Marlow & Jaime E. Settle & James H. Fowler, 2012. "A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7415), pages 295-298, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sanaz Ghorbanloo & Sajjad Shokouhyar, 2023. "Consumers' attitude footprint on sustainable development in developed and developing countries: a case study in the electronic industry," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 1444-1475, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alan Gerber & Mitchell Hoffman & John Morgan & Collin Raymond, 2020. "One in a Million: Field Experiments on Perceived Closeness of the Election and Voter Turnout," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 287-325, July.
    2. Ruyi Ge & Juan Feng & Bin Gu, 2016. "Borrower’s default and self-disclosure of social media information in P2P lending," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-6, December.
    3. Jiang, Lincheng & Zhao, Xiang & Ge, Bin & Xiao, Weidong & Ruan, Yirun, 2019. "An efficient algorithm for mining a set of influential spreaders in complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 516(C), pages 58-65.
    4. Yann Algan & Quoc-Anh Do & Nicolò Dalvit & Alexis Le Chapelain & Yves Zenou, 2015. "How Social Networks Shape Our Beliefs: A Natural Experiment among Future French Politicians," Working Papers hal-03459820, HAL.
    5. Daniele Barchiesi & Helen Susannah Moat & Christian Alis & Steven Bishop & Tobias Preis, 2015. "Quantifying International Travel Flows Using Flickr," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-8, July.
    6. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/78vacv4udu92eq3fec89svm9uv is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Julian Freitag & Anna Kerkhof & Johannes Münster, 2021. "Selective sharing of news items and the political position of news outlets," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 056, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    8. Lackner, Teresa & Fierro, Luca E. & Mellacher, Patrick, 2025. "Opinion dynamics meet agent-based climate economics: An integrated analysis of carbon taxation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    9. Donati, Dante, 2023. "Mobile Internet access and political outcomes: Evidence from South Africa," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    10. Yuho Chung & Yiwei Li & Jianmin Jia, 2021. "Exploring embeddedness, centrality, and social influence on backer behavior: the role of backer networks in crowdfunding," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 925-946, September.
    11. Liberini, Federica & Redoano, Michela & Russo, Antonio & Cuevas, Angel & Cuevas, Ruben, 2018. "Politics in the Facebook Era Evidence from the 2016 US Presidential Elections," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 389, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    12. Jan Trzaskowski, 2024. "Manipulation by design," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 34(1), pages 1-13, December.
    13. DiTraglia, Francis J. & García-Jimeno, Camilo & O’Keeffe-O’Donovan, Rossa & Sánchez-Becerra, Alejandro, 2023. "Identifying causal effects in experiments with spillovers and non-compliance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 1589-1624.
    14. Shota Saito & Yoshito Hirata & Kazutoshi Sasahara & Hideyuki Suzuki, 2015. "Tracking Time Evolution of Collective Attention Clusters in Twitter: Time Evolving Nonnegative Matrix Factorisation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    15. Komatsu, Hidenori & Nishio, Ken-ichiro, 2015. "An experimental study on motivational change for electricity conservation by normative messages," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 35-43.
    16. Jukka Jouhki & Epp Lauk & Maija Penttinen & Niina Sormanen & Turo Uskali, 2016. "Facebook’s Emotional Contagion Experiment as a Challenge to Research Ethics," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(4), pages 75-85.
    17. Alexander A. Kharlamov & Aleksey N. Raskhodchikov & Maria Pilgun, 2025. "Social media actors: perception and optimization of influence across different types," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 1-39, March.
    18. Borondo, J. & Morales, A.J. & Benito, R.M. & Losada, J.C., 2014. "Mapping the online communication patterns of political conversations," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 414(C), pages 403-413.
    19. Han Woo Park, 2014. "Mapping election campaigns through negative entropy: Triple and Quadruple Helix approach to South Korea’s 2012 presidential election," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 187-197, April.
    20. Jae Yeon Kim & Jaeung Sim & Daegon Cho, 2023. "Identity and Status: When Counterspeech Increases Hate Speech Reporting and Why," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 1683-1694, October.
    21. Pachucki, Mark C. & Hong, Chen-Shuo & O'Malley, A. James & Levy, Douglas E. & Thorndike, Anne N., 2024. "Network spillover effects associated with the ChooseWell 365 workplace randomized controlled trial to promote healthy food choices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 355(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:3:p:864-:d:314348. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.