april 30 & may 1, 2010 storms
DESCRIPTION
This was a test of the utility of Twitter during a couple of weather events. The test was performed by the Arkansas Geographic Information Office. The kml can be downloaded from http://bit.ly/bKzf5TTRANSCRIPT
1
Apologies for the use of text in this slide show. This was slide deck is intended to provide the
findings of a Tweet test performed by the Arkansas Geographic Information Office.
2
This was Just a Test
Prepared by: Arkansas Geographic Information Office
www.gis.arkansas.gov
All pictures shown; tweeted with #ArwxA KMZ can be downloaded from
http://bit.ly/bKzf5TStill working on date/time format
3
#ARwx Tweet TestApril 23-26, 2010
April 29 – May 3, 2010
Prepared by: Arkansas Geographic Information Office
www.gis.arkansas.gov
All pictures shown; tweeted with #ArwxA KMZ can be downloaded from
http://bit.ly/bKzf5TStill working on date/time format
4
There is a geographic component to TweetsAll tweets were not located properly during this test
5
There is a geographic component to TweetsLocation is a significant component
6
Purpose of Test• Determine twitter use for an event• Determine acceptance of a hashtag• Determine acceptance of geoenabled tweets• Figure out if this is useful
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lzk/?n=svr0410a.htm
7
Order of events
LR NWS reports strong thunderstorms, and possible tornadoes for the weekend
AGIO implements an API that will capture Tweet information with the hashtag #ARwxAGIO tweets “Pls consider enabling geotagging, and using the #ARwx hashtag”RT by several individuals, ADEM, and Arkansas.gov
8
Results April 23-26, 2010
• Safe Software Twitter Workbench worked properly– Data was captured and stored in a database– Data can be viewed in GoogleEarth
• Tweets– 32 unique users– 10 geotagged (lat/long)– 77 profile was used to locate– 9 could not be located– 96 total number of tweets during this event
9
Results April 23-26, 2010
• Safe Software Twitter Workbench worked properly– Data was captured and stored in a database– Data can be viewed in GoogleEarth
• Tweets– 32 unique users– 10 geotagged (lat/long)– 77 profile was used to locate– 9 could not be located– 96 total number of tweets during this event
Yeah!!!
Not a ‘significant’
Event
10
Information Captured
• Date / Time Created• Tweet ID• Tweet Text• Tweet User• Tweet User Profile Image• Location (lat-long / profile)• Search Text = #arwx• Geometry
11
Results April 30-May 3, 2010
• Safe Software Twitter Workbench- Failed*– A number of tweets were not captured
• Issues identified:– Number of Twitter API calls per hour– Configuration of scripts
» Each of these are being addressed for next test
• An export from Twapper allowed analysis– Captured Tweets– Georefrenced using profiles captured from failed test– Manually inserted several based on profile
description– Exported to KML*Failure of the workbench was due to implementation; not the Safe Software product
12
Results April 30-May 3, 2010
• Tweets– 219 unique users– 19 geotagged (lat/long)– 1,425 profile was used to locate– 135 could not be located– 1,579 total number of tweets during this event
• Users– Most tweets by a single user 100– User retweeted the most 108 (@wxmandan – LR
NWS)
13
Process Used to Generate KML
• Exported #ARwx from Twapper• Performed table join based on userid to the
data captured from the failed test– Inserted location to a number of tweets from
Twapper• Removed duplicates• Attempted to adjust date and time to CST• Ran Safe Software workbench to generate a
kml
14
General ObservationsApril 30 – May 3, 2010
15
General ObservationsApril 30 – May 3, 2010
16
General ObservationsApril 30 – May 3, 2010
17
General ObservationsApril 30 – May 3, 2010
Event was primarily southeast of this area. Twitter activity corresponds.
18
General ObservationsApril 30 – May 3, 2010
Tweets increased as event unfolded and decreased as threat subsided.
19
General ObservationsApril 30 – May 3, 2010
That’s just cool.
20
General Test Observations• Determine twitter use for an event
– Twitter proved useful for communicating the events as they unfolded. Tweets provided on the ground information and pictures.
• Determine acceptance of a hashtag– The hashtag was generally accepted, but took roughly 18 hours for
uptake• Determine acceptance of geoenabled tweets
– The majority of tweets were not geotagged. Several profiles did not allow for any location information to be identified.
• Figure out if this is useful– No doubt twitter is useful for communicating events. The next step
will be evaluating protocols needed for real-time analysis and bi-directional communication
21
The power of location
Why test the use?
22
County Boundaries
23
Earthquake Intensity
24
Roads
25
Bridges
26
Bridges
For Example:Crowd source damage
assessments following an earthquake
27
Considerations• Network
– Assumes network access– Assumes Twitter (in this case) is available
• Education– Enabling geotagging
• Acceptance– Geotagging– Ability to provide reports
• Mapability– API works properly– API provides useful information
• Usability
– Filtering the noise• Can the appropriate protocols be put in place to make this a
useful tool for hearing those that ‘call for help’ or submit ‘field reports’?
– The handling of date/time stamps
28
Summary
The recent events have provided us with good information to use in our test. We will continue to analyze the information and determine how the power of the technology might be further used in future events.
29
[email protected]: @learondalby
http://www.slideshare.net/learondalby
Special Thanks to @Kirrilian for technical work