User interface Vocabulary
The language of the Twitter user interface is the language that the user chooses to interact with and not necessarily the language that they choose to tweet in. When comparing user interface language with whether location service are enabled or not we find 123 different languages, many of which are in single of double figures, therefore we present only the 20 most frequently occurring user interface choices in Table 5 below. There is a statistically significant association between user interface language and whether location services are enabled both when taking only the top 20 (x 2 = 83, 122df, p<0.001) and all languages (x 2 = 82, 19df, p<0.001) although the latter is undermined by 48.8% of cells having an expected count of less than 5, hence the need to be selective.
8%), directly followed by those who work together from inside the Chinese (twenty-four.8%), Korean (twenty-six.8%) and you will German (twenty-seven.5%). Those individuals probably allow the latest options utilize the Portuguese interface (57.0%) followed closely by Indonesian (55.6%), Foreign-language (51.2%) and you can Turkish (47.9%). It’s possible to imagine as to the reasons these variations occur in family in order to cultural and you will governmental contexts, nevertheless the variations in preference are obvious and you can obvious.
The same analysis of the top 20 countries for users who do and do not geotag shows the same top 20 countries (Table 6) and, as above, there is a significant association between the behaviour and language of interface (x 2 = 23, 19df, p<0.001). However, although Russian-language user interface users were the least likely to enable location settings they by no means have the lowest geotagging rate (2.5%). It is Korean interface users that are the least likely to actually geotag their content (0.3%) followed closely by Japanese (0.8%), Arabic (0.9%) and German (1.3%). Those who use the Turkish interface are the most likely to use geotagging (8.8%) then Indonesian (6.3%), Portuguese (5.7%) and Thai (5.2%).
And speculation more than why these variations can be found, Tables 5 and you may 6 show that discover a user interface language feeling from inside the play one to molds conduct in if place functions is actually allowed and you will whether or not a person spends geotagging. Interface language isn’t a proxy to own venue therefore these can’t be dubbed since the nation top consequences, however, possibly there are cultural differences in perceptions with the Twitter play with and you may privacy which software language acts as an excellent proxy.
User Tweet Vocabulary
The language of individual tweets can be derived using the Language Detection Library for Java . 66 languages were identified in the dataset and the language of the last tweet of 1,681,075 users could not be identified (5.6%). There is a statistically significant association between these 67 languages and whether location services are enabled (x bookofmatches 2 = 1050644.2, 65df, p<0.001) but, as with user interface language, we present the 20 most frequently occurring languages below in Table 7 (x 2 = 1041865.3, 19df, p<0.001).
Just like the when examining interface vocabulary, pages which tweeted during the Russian have been the least probably enjoys location features allowed (18.2%) followed closely by Ukrainian (twenty two.4%), Korean (twenty eight.9%) and Arabic (30.5%) tweeters. Profiles creating within the Portuguese was indeed the most appropriate getting area functions let (58.5%) closely trailed by the Indonesian (55.8%), the Austronesian words away from Tagalog (the official title to have Filipino-54.2%) and you can Thai (51.8%).
We present a similar analysis of the top 20 languages for in Table 8 (using ‘Dataset2′) for users who did and did not use geotagging. Note that the 19 of the top 20 most frequent languages are the same as in Table 7 with Ukrainian being replaced at 20 th position by Slovenian. The tweet language could not be identified for 1,503,269 users (6.3%) and the association is significant when only including the top 20 most frequent languages (x 2 = 26, 19df, p<0.001). As with user interface language in Table 6, the least likely groups to use geotagging are those who tweet in Korean (0.4%), followed by Japanese (0.8%), Arabic (0.9%), Russian and German (both 2.0%). Again, mirroring the results in Table 6, Turkish tweeters are the most likely to geotag (8.3%), then Indonesian (7.0%), Portuguese (5.9%) and Thai (5.6%).
