skip to main content
10.1145/2018436.2018478acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement

Published:15 August 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

As the distribution of the video over the Internet becomes main- stream and its consumption moves from the computer to the TV screen, user expectation for high quality is constantly increasing. In this context, it is crucial for content providers to understand if and how video quality affects user engagement and how to best invest their resources to optimize video quality. This paper is a first step towards addressing these questions. We use a unique dataset that spans different content types, including short video on demand (VoD), long VoD, and live content from popular video con- tent providers. Using client-side instrumentation, we measure quality metrics such as the join time, buffering ratio, average bitrate, rendering quality, and rate of buffering events.

We quantify user engagement both at a per-video (or view) level and a per-user (or viewer) level. In particular, we find that the percentage of time spent in buffering (buffering ratio) has the largest impact on the user engagement across all types of content. However, the magnitude of this impact depends on the content type, with live content being the most impacted. For example, a 1% increase in buffering ratio can reduce user engagement by more than three minutes for a 90-minute live video event. We also see that the average bitrate plays a significantly more important role in the case of live content than VoD content.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

sigcomm_11_2.mp4

References

  1. Alexa Top Sites. http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Cisco forecast. http://blogs.cisco.com/sp/comments/cisco_visual_networking_index_forecast_annual_update/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Driving Engagement for Online Video. http://events.digitallyspeaking.com/akamai/mddec10/post.html?hash=ZDlBSGhsMXBidnJ3RXNWSW5mSE1HZz09.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Hadoop. http://hadoop.apache.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Hive. http://hive.apache.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Keynote systems. http://www.keynote.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Mail service costs Netflix 20 times more than streaming. http://www.techspot.com/news/42036-mail-service-costs-netflix-20-times-more-than-streaming.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Mean opinion score for voice quality. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.800-199608-I/en.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Subjective video quality assessment. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.910-200804-I/en.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. The tale of three blind men and an elephant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. K. Chen, C. Huang, P. Huang, C. Lei. Quantifying Skype User Satisfaction. In Proc. SIGCOMM, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Phillipa Gill, Martin Arlitt, Zongpeng Li, Anirban Mahanti. YouTube Traffic Characterization: A View From the Edge. In Proc. IMC, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Bouch, A. Kuchinsky, and N. Bhatti. Quality is in the Eye of the Beholder: Meeting Users' Requirements for Internet Quality of Service. In Proc. CHI, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. B. Cheng, L. Stein, H. Jin, and Z. Zheng. Towards Cinematic Internet Video-On-Demand. In Proc. Eurosys, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. B. Cheng, X. Liu, Z. Zhang, and H. Jin. A measurement study of a peer-to-peer video-on-demand system. In Proc. IPTPS, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. C. Costa, I. Cunha, A. Borges, C. Ramos, M. Rocha, J. Almeida, and B. Ribeiro-Neto. Analyzing Client Interactivity in Streaming Media. In Proc. WWW, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. C. Wu, B. Li, and S. Zhao. Diagnosing Network-wide P2P Live Streaming Inefficiencies. In Proc. INFOCOM, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. M. Cha, H. Kwak, P. Rodriguez, Y.-Y. Ahn, and S. Moon. I Tube, You Tube, Everybody Tubes: Analyzing the World's Largest User Generated Content Video System. In Proc. IMC, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. Cha, P. Rodriguez, J. Crowcroft, S. Moon, and X. Amatriain. Watching Television Over an IP Network. In Proc. IMC, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. Claypool and J. Tanner. The effects of jitter on the peceptual quality of video. In Proc. ACM Multimedia, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. D. Galletta, R. Henry, S. McCoy, and P. Polak. Web Site Delays: How Tolerant are Users? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, (1), 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. H. Y. et al. Inside the Bird's Nest: Measurements of Large-Scale Live VoD from the 2008 Olympics. In Proc. IMC, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. S. R. Gulliver and G. Ghinea. Defining user perception of distributed multimedia quality. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMCCAP), 2(4), Nov. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. H. Yu, D. Zheng, B. Y. Zhao, and W. Zheng. Understanding User Behavior in Large-Scale Video-on-Demand Systems. In Proc. Eurosys, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. X. Hei, C. Liang, J. Liang, Y. Liu, and K. W. Ross. A measurement study of a large-scale P2P IPTV system. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Y. Huang, D.-M. C. Tom Z. J. Fu, J. C. S. Lui, and C. Huang. Challenges, Design and Analysis of a Large-scale P2P-VoD System. In Proc. SIGCOMM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. W. W. Hyunseok Chang, Sugih Jamin. Live Streaming Performance of the Zattoo Network. In Proc. IMC, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. I. Ceaparu, J. Lazar, K. Bessiere, J. Robinson, and B. Shneiderman. Determining Causes and Severity of End-User Frustration. In International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. K. Cho, K. Fukuda, H. Esaki. The Impact and Implications of the Growth in Residential User-to-User Traffic. In Proc. SIGCOMM, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. K. Sripanidkulchai, B. Maggs, and H. Zhang. An Analysis of Live Streaming Workloads on the Internet. In Proc. IMC, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. A. Mahimkar, Z. Ge, A. Shaikh, J. Wang, J. Yates, Y. Zhang, and Q. Zhao. Towards Automated Performance Diagnosis in a Large IPTV Network. In Proc. SIGCOMM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. T. Mitchell. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. S. Ali, A. Mathur, and H. Zhang. Measurement of Commercial Peer-to-Peer Live Video Streaming. In Proc. Workshop on Recent Advances in Peer-to-Peer Streaming, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. S. Guha, S. Annapureddy, C. Gkantsidis, D. Gunawardena, and P. Rodriguez. Is High-Quality VoD Feasible using P2P Swarming? In Proc. WWW, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. S. Saroiu, K. P. Gummadi, R. J. Dunn, S. D. Gribble, and H. M. Levy. An Analysis of Internet Content Delivery Systems. In Proc. OSDI, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. H. A. Simon. Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich World. Martin Greenberger, Computers, Communication, and the Public Interest, The Johns Hopkins Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. K. Sripanidkulchai, A. Ganjam, B. Maggs, and H. Zhang. The Feasibility of Supporting Large-Scale Live Streaming Applications with Dynamic Application End-Points. In Proc. SIGCOMM, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. K.-C. Yang, C. C. Guest, K. El-Maleh, and P. K. Das. Perceptual Temporal Quality Metric for Compressed Video. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, Nov. 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SIGCOMM '11: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2011 conference
          August 2011
          502 pages
          ISBN:9781450307970
          DOI:10.1145/2018436
          • cover image ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
            ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review  Volume 41, Issue 4
            SIGCOMM '11
            August 2011
            480 pages
            ISSN:0146-4833
            DOI:10.1145/2043164
            Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2011 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 15 August 2011

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          SIGCOMM '11 Paper Acceptance Rate32of223submissions,14%Overall Acceptance Rate554of3,547submissions,16%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader