Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3460231.3474269acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesrecsysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Follow the guides: disentangling human and algorithmic curation in online music consumption

Published: 13 September 2021 Publication History

Abstract

The role of recommendation systems in the diversity of content consumption on platforms is a much-debated issue. The quantitative state of the art often overlooks the existence of individual attitudes toward guidance, and eventually of different categories of users in this regard. Focusing on the case of music streaming, we analyze the complete listening history of about 9k users over one year and demonstrate that there is no blanket answer to the intertwinement of recommendation use and consumption diversity: it depends on users. First we compute for each user the relative importance of different access modes within their listening history, introducing a trichotomy distinguishing so-called ‘organic’ use from algorithmic and editorial guidance. We thereby identify four categories of users. We then focus on two scales related to content diversity, both in terms of dispersion – how much users consume the same content repeatedly – and popularity – how popular is the content they consume. We show that the two types of recommendation offered by music platforms – algorithmic and editorial – may drive the consumption of more or less diverse content in opposite directions, depending also strongly on the type of users. Finally, we compare users’ streaming histories with the music programming of a selection of popular French radio stations during the same period. While radio programs are usually more tilted toward repetition than users’ listening histories, they often program more songs from less popular artists. On the whole, our results highlight the nontrivial effects of platform-mediated recommendation on consumption, and lead us to speak of ‘filter niches’ rather than ‘filter bubbles’. They hint at further ramifications for the study and design of recommendation systems.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (GMT20210914-095926_Recording_1280x720.mp4)
We focus on the influence of algorithmic recommendation on user tastes and consumption, notably its diversity, in the case of online music streaming. Rather than speaking of "filter bubbles", we speak first of filter niches ? we show how characterizing user behavior determines the potential effect of recommendation, rather than the other way around. More broadly, there is no blanket answer to the question of the influence of recommendation: it depends first on users.

References

[1]
Luca Maria Aiello and Nicola Barbieri. 2017. Evolution of Ego-networks in Social Media with Link Recommendations. In Proc. 10th ACM Intl. Conf. on Web Search and Data Mining(WSDM ’17). ACM, New York, NY, 111–120.
[2]
Massimo Airoldi, Davide Beraldo, and Alessandro Gandini. 2016. Follow the algorithm: An exploratory investigation of music on YouTube. Poetics 57(2016), 1–13.
[3]
Ashton Anderson, Lucas Maystre, Ian Anderson, Rishabh Mehrotra, and Mounia Lalmas. 2020. Algorithmic effects on the diversity of consumption on spotify. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. ACM, New York, 2155–2165.
[4]
Eytan Bakshy, Solomon Messing, and Lada A. Adamic. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 6239 (2015), 1130–1132.
[5]
Jack Bandy and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2020. Auditing news curation systems: A case study examining algorithmic and editorial logic in Apple News. In Proceedings of the 14th ICWSM International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, 36–47.
[6]
Emilia Barna. 2017. “The perfect guide in a crowded musical landscape:” Online music platforms and curatorship. First Monday 22, 4 (2017).
[7]
Christine Bauer and Markus Schedl. 2019. Global and country-specific mainstreaminess measures: Definitions, analysis, and usage for improving personalized music recommendation systems. PloS one 14, 6 (June 2019), e0217389.
[8]
David Beer. 2013. Genre, boundary drawing and the classificatory imagination. Cultural Sociology 7, 2 (2013), 145–160.
[9]
Jean-Samuel Beuscart, Samuel Coavoux, and Sisley Maillard. 2019. Music recommendation algorithms and listener autonomy – The listening patterns of a panel of music streaming users. Reseaux 213, 1 (2019), 17–47.
[10]
Tiziano Bonini and Alessandro Gandini. 2019. “First Week Is Editorial, Second Week Is Algorithmic”: Platform Gatekeepers and the Platformization of Music Curation. Social Media + Society 5, 4 (2019), 1–1.
[11]
Geoffray Bonnin and Dietmar Jannach. 2014. Automated generation of music playlists: Survey and experiments. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 47, 2 (2014), 1–35.
[12]
Andrei Broder. 2002. A taxonomy of web search. ACM SIGIR Forum 36, 2 (2002), 3–10.
[13]
Hannes Datta, George Knox, and Bart J Bronnenberg. 2018. Changing their tune: How consumers’ adoption of online streaming affects music consumption and discovery. Marketing Science 37, 1 (2018), 5–21.
[14]
Ivan Dylko, Igor Dolgov, William Hoffman, Nicholas Eckhart, Maria Molina, and Omar Aaziz. 2017. The dark side of technology: An experimental investigation of the influence of customizability technology on online political selective exposure. Computers in Human Behavior 73 (2017), 181 – 190.
[15]
Anita Elberse. 2008. Should you invest in the long tail?Harvard Business Review 86, 7/8 (2008), 88–96.
[16]
Elena V Epure, Guillaume Salha, Manuel Moussallam, and Romain Hennequin. 2020. Modeling the Music Genre Perception across Language-Bound Cultures. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, 4765–4779.
[17]
Jean Garcia-Gathright, Brian St. Thomas, Christine Hosey, Zahra Nazari, and Fernando Diaz. 2018. Understanding and Evaluating User Satisfaction with Music Discovery. In Proc. 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval(SIGIR ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 55–64.
[18]
Sharad Goel, Andrei Broder, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, and Bo Pang. 2010. Anatomy of the long tail: ordinary people with extraordinary tastes. In Proc. WSDM’10 ACM 3rd Intl Conf on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, New York, NY, 201–210.
[19]
Mario Haim, Andreas Graefe, and Hans-Bernd Brosius. 2018. Burst of the Filter Bubble? Effects of personalization on the diversity of Google News. Digital Journalism 6, 3 (2018), 330–343.
[20]
Romain Hennequin, Jimena Royo-Letelier, and Manuel Moussallam. 2018. Audio based disambiguation of music genre tags. In Proceedings of the 19th ISMIR Conference. International Society of Music Information Retrieval, 645–652.
[21]
Christine Hosey, Lara Vujović, Brian St. Thomas, Jean Garcia-Gathright, and Jennifer Thom. 2019. Just Give Me What I Want: How People Use and Evaluate Music Search. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12.
[22]
Cheng-Kang Hsieh, Longqi Yang, Yin Cui, Tsung-Yi Lin, Serge Belongie, and Deborah Estrin. 2017. Collaborative metric learning. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web. 193–201.
[23]
Marius Kaminskas and Derek Bridge. 2016. Diversity, serendipity, novelty, and coverage: a survey and empirical analysis of beyond-accuracy objectives in recommender systems. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 7, 1(2016), 1–42.
[24]
Nedim Karakayali, Burc Kostem, and Idil Galip. 2018. Recommendation systems as technologies of the self: Algorithmic control and the formation of music taste. Theory, Culture & Society 35, 2 (2018), 3–24.
[25]
Renaud Lambiotte and Marcel Ausloos. 2005. Uncovering collective listening habits and music genres in bipartite networks. Physical Review E 72, 6 (2005), 066107.
[26]
Thomas Louail and Marc Barthelemy. 2017. Headphones on the wire Statistical patterns of music listening practices. arXiv preprint 1704.05815 (2017).
[27]
Sean M McNee, John Riedl, and Joseph A Konstan. 2006. Being accurate is not enough: how accuracy metrics have hurt recommender systems. In CHI’06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. 1097–1101.
[28]
Bhaskar Mitra, Milad Shokouhi, Filip Radlinski, and Katja Hofmann. 2014. On User Interactions with Query Auto-Completion. In Proc. ACM SIGIR 37th Intl. Conf. on Research & development in information retrieval. ACM, 1055–1058.
[29]
Judith Möller, Damian Trilling, Natali Helberger, and Bram van Es. 2018. Do not blame it on the algorithm: an empirical assessment of multiple recommender systems and their impact on content diversity. Information, Communication & Society 21, 7 (2018), 959–977.
[30]
Sean A. Munson and Paul Resnick. 2010. Presenting Diverse Political Opinions: How and How Much. In Proc. CHI 2010: Expressing and Understanding Opinions in Social Media, April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA. 1455–1466.
[31]
Tien T Nguyen, Pik-Mai Hui, F Maxwell Harper, Loren Terveen, and Joseph A Konstan. 2014. Exploring the filter bubble: the effect of using recommender systems on content diversity. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web. ACM, 677–686.
[32]
Minsu Park, Ingmar Weber, Mor Naaman, and Sarah Vieweg. 2015. Understanding musical diversity via online social media. In Proceedings of the 9th ICWSM International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, 308–317.
[33]
Richard A Peterson and Roger M Kern. 1996. Changing highbrow taste: From snob to omnivore. American sociological review 61, 5 (1996), 900–907.
[34]
Rémy Poulain and Fabien Tarissan. 2020. Investigating the lack of diversity in user behavior: The case of musical content on online platforms. Information processing & management 57, 2 (2020), 102169.
[35]
Cornelius Puschmann. 2019. Beyond the bubble: Assessing the diversity of political search results. Digital Journalism 7, 6 (2019), 824–843.
[36]
Camille Roth. 2019. Algorithmic Distortion of Informational Landscapes. Intellectica 70, 1 (2019), 97–118.
[37]
Camille Roth, Antoine Mazières, and Telmo Menezes. 2020. Tubes and bubbles topological confinement of YouTube recommendations. PloS one 15, 4 (2020), e0231703.
[38]
Mike Savage and Modesto Gayo. 2011. Unravelling the omnivore: A field analysis of contemporary musical taste in the United Kingdom. Poetics 39, 5 (2011), 337–357.
[39]
Markus Schedl, Hamed Zamani, Ching-Wei Chen, Yashar Deldjoo, and Mehdi Elahi. 2018. Current challenges and visions in music recommender systems research. International Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval 7, 2(2018), 95–116.
[40]
Nick Seaver. 2019. Captivating algorithms: Recommender systems as traps. Journal of Material Culture 24, 4 (2019), 421–436.
[41]
Dougal Shakespeare, Lorenzo Porcaro, Emilia Gómez, and Carlos Castillo. 2020. Exploring Artist Gender Bias in Music Recommendation. In Proc. 2nd Workshop on the Impact of Recommender Systems (ImpactRS 2020) at 14th ACM Conf. on Recommender Systems (RecSys 2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01715.
[42]
Dougal Shakespeare and Camille Roth. 2021. Tracing Affordance and Item Adoption on Music Streaming Platforms. In Proceedings of the 22nd ISMIR Conference. International Society of Music Information Retrieval.
[43]
Aaron van den Oord, Sander Dieleman, and Benjamin Schrauwen. 2013. Deep content-based music recommendation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, M. Welling, Z. Ghahramani, and K. Q. Weinberger(Eds.), Vol. 26. Curran Associates, Inc.
[44]
Koen Van Eijck. 2001. Social differentiation in musical taste patterns. Social forces 79, 3 (2001), 1163–1185.
[45]
Gabriel Vigliensoni and Ichiro Fujinaga. 2016. Automatic Music Recommendation Systems: Do Demographic, Profiling, and Contextual Features Improve Their Performance?. In Proceedings of the 17th ISMIR Conference. International Society of Music Information Retrieval, 94–100.
[46]
Jack Webster. 2020. Taste in the platform age: Music streaming services and new forms of class distinction. Information, Communication & Society 23, 13 (2020), 1909–1924.
[47]
Kris West and Paul Lamere. 2006. A model-based approach to constructing music similarity functions. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing 2007, 1(2006), 024602.
[48]
Nils Wlömert and Dominik Papies. 2016. On-demand streaming services and music industry revenues—Insights from Spotify’s market entry. International Journal of Research in Marketing 33, 2 (2016), 314–327.
[49]
Yuan Cao Zhang, Diarmuid Ó Séaghdha, Daniele Quercia, and Tamas Jambor. 2012. Auralist: introducing serendipity into music recommendation. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. 13–22.
[50]
Elena Zheleva, John Guiver, Eduarda Mendes Rodrigues, and Nataša Milić-Frayling. 2010. Statistical models of music-listening sessions in social media. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. 1019–1028.
[51]
F. J. Zuiderveen Borgesius, D. Trilling, J. Möller, B. Bodó, C. H. de Vreese, and N. Helberger. 2016. Should we worry about filter bubbles?Internet Policy Review 5, 1 (2016).

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Do Recommender Systems Promote Local Music? A Reproducibility Study Using Music Streaming DataProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems10.1145/3640457.3688065(148-157)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
  • (2024)MuRS 2024: 2nd Music Recommender Systems WorkshopProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems10.1145/3640457.3687097(1202-1205)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
  • (2024)To See or Not to See: Understanding the Tensions of Algorithmic Curation for Visual ArtsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658917(444-455)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
RecSys '21: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems
September 2021
883 pages
ISBN:9781450384582
DOI:10.1145/3460231
Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 13 September 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Conference

RecSys '21: Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems
September 27 - October 1, 2021
Amsterdam, Netherlands

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 254 of 1,295 submissions, 20%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)148
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)17
Reflects downloads up to 17 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Do Recommender Systems Promote Local Music? A Reproducibility Study Using Music Streaming DataProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems10.1145/3640457.3688065(148-157)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
  • (2024)MuRS 2024: 2nd Music Recommender Systems WorkshopProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems10.1145/3640457.3687097(1202-1205)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
  • (2024)To See or Not to See: Understanding the Tensions of Algorithmic Curation for Visual ArtsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658917(444-455)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
  • (2024)User Experiments on the Effect of the Diversity of Consumption on News ServicesIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2024.336777012(31841-31852)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Interpreting Node Embedding Distances Through n-Order Proximity NeighbourhoodsComplex Networks XV10.1007/978-3-031-57515-0_14(179-193)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
  • (2023)Serendipity on radio and streaming: Between musical discovery and recognitionNew Media & Society10.1177/1461444823115456826:11(6533-6551)Online publication date: 17-Feb-2023
  • (2023)MuRS: Music Recommender Systems WorkshopProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems10.1145/3604915.3608750(1227-1230)Online publication date: 14-Sep-2023
  • (2023)Personalised But Impersonal: Listeners' Experiences of Algorithmic Curation on Music Streaming ServicesProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581492(1-14)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
  • (2023)Dynamic Mixed Membership Stochastic Block Model for Weighted Labeled NetworksProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval10.1145/3539618.3591675(1569-1577)Online publication date: 19-Jul-2023
  • (2023)An Inverse Propensity Score Framework for Breaking Filter Bubble Recommendation2023 IEEE International Conference on Control, Electronics and Computer Technology (ICCECT)10.1109/ICCECT57938.2023.10140423(1588-1592)Online publication date: 28-Apr-2023
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media