You will find simply an improvement away from 4
Fig 1 illustrates the two distributions of age for those who do enable location services and those who do not. There is a long tale on both, but notably the tail has a less steep decline on the right-hand side for those without the setting enabled. An independent samples Mann-Whitney U confirms that the difference is statistically significant (p<0.001) and descriptive measures show that the mean age for ‘not enabled‘ is lower than for ‘enabled‘ at and respectively and higher medians ( and respectively) with a slightly higher standard deviation for ‘not enabled‘ (8.44) than ‘enabled‘ (8.171). This indicates an association between older users and opting in to location services. One explanation for this might be a naivety on the part of older users over enabling location based services, but this does assume that younger users who are more ‘tech savvy‘ are more reticent towards allowing location based data.
Fig 2 shows the distribution of age for users who produced or did not produce geotagged content (‘Dataset2′). Of the 23,789,264 cases in the dataset, age could be identified for 46,843 (0.2%) users. Because the proportion of users with geotagged content is so small the y-axis has been logged. There is a statistically significant difference in the age profile of the two groups according to an independent samples Mann-Whitney U test (p<0.001) with a mean age of for non-geotaggers and for geotaggers (medians of and respectively), indicating that there is a tendency for geotaggers to be slightly older than non-geotaggers.
Pursuing the towards the of latest run classifying the social family of tweeters away from profile meta-investigation (operationalised within this perspective as NS-SEC–pick Sloan ainsi que al. (mehr …)