Web Survey Bibliography
With more than 250 million active users [1], Facebook (FB) is currently one of the most important online social networks. Our goal in this paper is to obtain a representative (unbiased) sample of Facebook users by crawling its social graph. In this quest, we consider and implement several candidate techniques. Two approaches that are found to perform well are the Metropolis-Hasting random walk (MHRW) and a re-weighted random walk (RWRW). Both have pros and cons, which we demonstrate through a comparison to each other as well as to the ”ground-truth” (UNI - obtained through true uniform sampling of FB userIDs). In contrast, the traditional BreadthFirst-Search and Random Walk (without re-weighting) perform quite poorly, producing substantially biased results. In addition to offline performance assessment, we introduce online formal convergence diagnostics to assess sample quality during the data collection process. We show how these can be used to effectively determine when a random walk sample is of adequate size and quality for subsequent use (i.e., when it is safe to cease sampling). Using these methods, we collect the first to the best of our knowledge unbiased sample of Facebook. Finally, we use one of our representative datasets, collected through MHRW, to characterize several key properties of Facebook.
Author Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Web survey bibliography (366)
- Grundzüge des Datenschutzrechts und aktuelle Datenschutzprobleme in der Markt- und Sozialforschung; 2017; Schweizer, A.
- Web- and Phone-based Data Collection using Planned Missing Designs; 2017; Revelle, W.; Condon, M. D.; Wilt, J.; French, A. J.; Brown, A.; Elleman, G. L.
- Finding and Investigating Geographical Data Online; 2017; Martin, D.; Cockings, S.; Leung, S.
- CAQDAS at a Crossroads: Affordances of Technology in an Online Environment; 2017; Silver, C.; Bulloch, L. S.
- Artificial Intelligence/Expert Systems and Online Research; 2017; Brent, E.
- Improving the Effectiveness of Online Data Collection by Mixing Survey Modes; 2017; Dillman, D. A.; Hao, F.; Millar, M. M.
- Online Survey Software; 2017; Kaczmirek, L.
- Online Survey Design; 2017; To, N.
- Sampling Methods for Online Surveys; 2017; Fricker, R. D.
- Research Design and Tools for Online Research; 2017; Hewson, C. M.
- Overview: Online Surveys; 2017; Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Using Visual Analogue Scales in eHealth: Non-Response Effects in a Lifestyle Intervention; 2016; Kuhlmann, T.; Reips, U.-D.; Wienert, J.; Lippke, S.
- A Feasibility Study of Recruiting and Maintaining a Web Panel of People with Disabilities; 2016; Chandler, J.
- Inferences from Internet Panel Studies and Comparisons with Probability Samples; 2016; Lachan, R.; Boyle, J.; Harding, R.
- Exploring the Gig Economy Using a Web-Based Survey: Measuring the Online 'and' Offline Side...; 2016; Robles, B. J.; McGee, M.
- Facebook, Twitter, & Qr codes: An exploratory trial examining the feasibility of social media mechanisms...; 2016; Gu, L. L.; Skierkowski, D.; Florin, P.; Friend, K.; Ye, Y.
- Distractions: The Incidence and Consequences of Interruptions for Survey Respondents ; 2016; Ansolabehere, S.; Schaffner, B. F.
- Mixing modes of data collection in Swiss social surveys: Methodological report of the LIVES-FORS mixed...; 2016; Roberts, C.; Joye, D.; Staehli, M. E.
- Representative web-survey!; 2016; Linde, P.
- The Analysis of Respondent’s Behavior toward Edit Messages in a Web Survey; 2016; Park, Y.
- Refining the Web Response Option in the Multiple Mode Collection of the American Community Survey; 2016; Hughes, T.; Tancreto, J.
- The Utility of an Online Convenience Panel for Reaching Rare and Dispersed Populations; 2016; Sell, R.; Goldberg, S.; Conron, K.
- Comparing online and telephone survey results in the context of a skin cancer prevention campaign evaluation...; 2016; Hollier, L.P.; Pettigrew, S.; Slevin, T.; Strickland, M.; Minto, C.
- Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk; 2016; Berinsky, A.; Huber, G. A.; Lenz, G. S.
- Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population The German Internet Panel; 2016; Blom, A. G.; Gathmann, C.; Krieger, U.
- Sample Representation and Substantive Outcomes Using Web With and Without Incentives Compared to Telephone...; 2016; Lipps, O.; Pekari, N.
- Effects of Data Collection Mode and Response Entry Device on Survey Response Quality; 2016; Ha, L.; Zhang, Che.; Jiang, W.
- Navigation Buttons in Web-Based Surveys: Respondents’ Preferences Revisited in the Laboratory; 2016; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.; Erdman, C.; Lakhe, S.
- Web-based versus Paper-based Survey Data: An Estimation of Road Users’ Value of Travel Time Savings...; 2016; Kato, H.; Sakashita, A.; Tsuchiya, Tak.
- Reminder Effect and Data Usability on Web Questionnaire Survey for University Students; 2016; Oishi, T.; Mori, M.; Takata, E.
- Reducing Underreports of Behaviors in Retrospective Surveys: The Effects of Three Different Strategies...; 2016; Lugtig, P. J.; Glasner, T.; Boeve, A.
- Dropouts in Longitudinal Surveys; 2016; Lugtig, P. J.; De Leeuw, E. D.
- Participant recruitment and data collection through Facebook: the role of personality factors; 2016; Rife, S. C.; Cate, K. L.; Kosinski, M.; Stillwell, D.
- What drives the participation in a monthly research web panel? The experience of ELIPSS, a French random...; 2016; Legleye, S; Cornilleau, A.; Razakamanana, N.
- Quantifying Under- and Overreporting in Surveys Through a Dual-Questioning-Technique Design. ; 2016; de Jong , M.; Fox, J.-P.; Steenkamp, J. - B. E. M.
- Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey. ; 2016; Chen, J. S.; Sprague, B. L.; Klabunde, C. N.; Tosteson, A. N. A.; Bitton, A.; Onega, T.; MacLean, C....
- Electronic and paper based data collection methods in library and information science research: A comparative...; 2016; Tella, A.
- A Technical Guide to Effective and Accessible web Surveys; 2016; Baatard, G.
- The Validity of Surveys: Online and Offline; 2016; Wiersma, W.
- Methods can matter: Where Web surveys produce different results than phone interviews; 2016; Keeter, S.
- Computer-assisted and online data collection in general population surveys; 2016; Skarupova, K.
- Will They Stay or Will They Go? Personality Predictors of Dropout in Online Study; 2016; Nestler, S.; Thielsch, M.; Vasilev, E.; Back, M.
- A Framework of Incorporating Thai Social Networking Data in Online Marketing Survey; 2016; Jiamthapthaksin, R.; Aung, T. H.; Ratanasawadwat, N.
- Development of a scale to measure skepticism toward electronic word-of-mouth; 2016; Zhang, Xia.; Ko, M.; Carpenter, D.
- Improving social media measurement in surveys: Avoiding acquiescence bias in Facebook research; 2016; Kuru, O.; Pasek, J.
- Psychological research in the internet age: The quality of web-based data; 2016; Ramsey, S. R.; Thompson, K. L.; McKenzie, M.; Rosenbaum, A.
- Internet Abusive Use Questionnaire: Psychometric properties; 2016; Calvo-Frances, F.
- Revisiting “yes/no” versus “check all that apply”: Results from a mixed modes...; 2016; Nicolaas, G.; Campanelli, P.; Hope, S.; Jaeckle, A.; Lynn, P.
- A Statistical Approach to Provide Individualized Privacy for Surveys; 2016; Esponda, F.; Huerta, K.; Guerrero, V. M.
- Online and Social Media Data As an Imperfect Continuous Panel Survey; 2016; Diaz, F.; Garmon, F.; Hofman, J. K.; Kiciman, E.; Rothschild, D.