Wonder what conclusions can be drawn from morphology diffs in graphs (Menander graphs? 🤔) For eg here are and my graphs. Though we share a lot of follows, hers is super compact and rather well segregated, mine is loose and mixed up
Conversation
Replying to
A useful companion view would be a smallworldiness: inbound degree vs frequency. I suspect banana follows people who are more likely to also follow each other than I do. That would explain greater compactification in her graph. So my small world would have lower median indegree
1
8
Reminds of the globular cluster vs open cluster distinction in astronomy. The former are a large number of tightly gravitationally bound old stars, the latter are a small number of loosely bound young stars. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_clus
1
8
Well I also follow about 3x as many people as her 🤔
1
2
The first thing that comes to mind for me is that your network probably has a higher idea heterogeneity. This would naturally lead to a more diffuse network, if it were to be connected via followers.
2
It should be noted that the spacing between the nodes is a parameter you can vary in the layout algorithm: "scaling". I haven't been using a consistent one for each graph. Graphs need different ones to be presentable. But, you can, I think, draw conclusions based on shape etc
1
2
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Literalbanana is mostly a friendly dinner party of regulars, vgr is a slightly more chaotic cafe/bar
I’m curious to see how mine turns out
1
4





