diff --git a/Script/SOCMINT-Twitter/Readme.md b/Script/SOCMINT-Twitter/Readme.md index 039e22b..75154b3 100644 --- a/Script/SOCMINT-Twitter/Readme.md +++ b/Script/SOCMINT-Twitter/Readme.md @@ -274,11 +274,11 @@ Dir Output Sentiment Analysis -Image +image -Image +image -Image +image Follower and Following diff --git a/Script/SOCMINT-Twitter/sentiment.py b/Script/SOCMINT-Twitter/sentiment.py index 243bcbc..7f42f5e 100644 --- a/Script/SOCMINT-Twitter/sentiment.py +++ b/Script/SOCMINT-Twitter/sentiment.py @@ -295,6 +295,21 @@ def top_users(items: list[dict], top_n: int | None = None) -> list[dict]: "avatar": item.get("avatar") or item.get("user_avatar"), "verified": item.get("verified"), "is_blue_verified": item.get("is_blue_verified"), + # Same account-age fields id_forensics.py's enrich_account_age() + # already stamps onto every raw item at the /api/run choke point + # (app.py) — index.html/archive.html/graph.html already surface + # these as a badge; the analytics dashboard just wasn't pulling + # them through to its own account list yet. + "account_created": item.get("account_created"), + "account_age": item.get("account_age"), + "account_age_flag": item.get("account_age_flag"), + # account_age_flag is None whenever id_forensics.py's + # enrich_account_age() lands in its own "unknown" bucket (an id + # just outside the calibrated range — see that module's + # docstring) — account_age_precision is what tells the frontend + # "this account really is unresolvable," as opposed to just + # never having had an account id to enrich in the first place. + "account_age_precision": item.get("account_age_precision"), } ranked = [] for handle, count in counts.most_common(top_n): diff --git a/Script/SOCMINT-Twitter/templates/analytics.html b/Script/SOCMINT-Twitter/templates/analytics.html index 27560df..6db7803 100644 --- a/Script/SOCMINT-Twitter/templates/analytics.html +++ b/Script/SOCMINT-Twitter/templates/analytics.html @@ -200,6 +200,22 @@ .user-count { font-size: 12px; color: var(--accent); font-weight: 600; flex-shrink: 0; } .verified-badge { color: var(--accent); font-weight: 700; font-size: 0.85em; margin-left: 3px; } + /* Same classes/colors as index.html/archive.html/graph.html's own + account_age_flag badge — new/recent accounts are a classic bot/ + sockpuppet signal, worth being just as visible here as it already is + everywhere else this data shows up. */ + .age-badge { + display: inline-block; font-size: 10px; font-weight: 500; padding: 1px 7px; + border-radius: 20px; border: 1px solid var(--border); margin-left: 6px; vertical-align: middle; + } + .age-badge.age-new { color: var(--danger); border-color: #7f1d1d; background: var(--danger-bg); } + .age-badge.age-recent { color: #f59e0b; border-color: #78350f; background: #1c0e02; } + .age-badge.age-established { color: var(--success); border-color: #14532d; background: var(--success-bg); } + /* No colored bucket, since there genuinely isn't one here (id_forensics.py + couldn't place this id in either range) — muted like sent-neutral, + not styled to look like a real new/recent/established verdict. */ + .age-badge.age-unknown { color: var(--muted); border-color: var(--border); background: var(--bg); } + .engagement-list { background: var(--surface); border: 1px solid var(--border); border-radius: 8px; overflow: hidden; } .eng-row { padding: 10px 12px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(42,45,58,0.6); } .eng-row:last-child { border-bottom: none; } @@ -413,6 +429,38 @@ function verifiedBadgeHtml(u) { return `✓`; } +// Same account_age_flag badge index.html/archive.html/graph.html already +// render as a plain field row — a new/recent account is a classic bot/ +// sockpuppet signal, worth surfacing here at a glance too, not just buried +// in a raw field somewhere this dashboard doesn't even show. `u`/`item` +// works the same as verifiedBadgeHtml() above: an accountSentiment() entry, +// sentiment.py's top_users() entry, or a raw scored-item's `.item` all +// carry the same field name. +const AGE_LABELS = { new: 'New account', recent: 'Recent account', established: 'Established account' }; +function ageBadgeHtml(u) { + if (!u) return ''; + if (u.account_age_flag) { + const label = AGE_LABELS[u.account_age_flag] || u.account_age_flag; + return `${esc(label)}`; + } + // account_age_flag is null in two different situations that look + // identical unless account_age_precision is checked too: no account id + // was ever available to enrich (nothing to show — most items, no badge + // at all is correct), vs. id_forensics.py's enrich_account_age() DID + // have an id but it fell into that module's own documented "unknown" + // gap (an id just past the calibrated range — see id_forensics.py's + // module docstring). The second case is still worth a visible marker: + // index.html/archive.html/graph.html all still show this account's own + // account_age text as a plain field row even here, and this dashboard + // has no equivalent raw-field fallback view, so silently showing + // nothing would make an intentionally-labeled "we don't know" look + // exactly like "there was never anything to know" instead. + if (u.account_age_precision === 'unknown') { + return `Age unknown`; + } + return ''; +} + // Same allowlist index.html/graph.html apply to avatar/banner URLs — https // only, no quote/angle-bracket/whitespace/paren characters. Not strictly // required for a plain (no second CSS-parsing pass involved the @@ -888,6 +936,8 @@ function buildSnaGraph() { label: '@' + h + ' (' + a.total + ')', name: a.name, avatar: a.avatar, verified: a.verified, is_blue_verified: a.is_blue_verified, + account_age_flag: a.account_age_flag, account_age: a.account_age, + account_age_precision: a.account_age_precision, pro: a.pro, neutral: a.neutral, con: a.con, total: a.total, proPct: pct(a.pro), neutralPct: pct(a.neutral), conPct: pct(a.con), }, @@ -959,7 +1009,7 @@ function showSnaNodeInfo(nd) { panel.innerHTML = `
${esc(nd.name || nd.id)}${verifiedBadgeHtml(nd)}
-
@${esc(nd.id)}
+
@${esc(nd.id)}${ageBadgeHtml(nd)}
Pro ${nd.pro} @@ -1117,7 +1167,7 @@ let _acctSentCache = null; let _acctSentCacheFor = null; function accountSentiment(d) { if (_acctSentCacheFor === d) return _acctSentCache; - const accounts = {}; // handle -> { pro, neutral, con, total, name, avatar, verified, is_blue_verified } + const accounts = {}; // handle -> { pro, neutral, con, total, name, avatar, verified, is_blue_verified, account_age_flag, account_age, account_created } d.scored_items.forEach(it => { const raw = it.item || {}; const handle = it.author || raw.screen_name || raw.user; @@ -1127,6 +1177,13 @@ function accountSentiment(d) { pro: 0, neutral: 0, con: 0, total: 0, name: raw.name || '', avatar: raw.avatar || raw.user_avatar || '', verified: false, is_blue_verified: false, + // Set once at first sight, same as name/avatar above — an + // account's creation date doesn't change between records, so + // there's no "accumulate" logic needed the way verified has. + account_age_flag: raw.account_age_flag || null, + account_age: raw.account_age || null, + account_created: raw.account_created || null, + account_age_precision: raw.account_age_precision || null, }; } // An account can show up on both a verified and (in principle, if the @@ -1170,7 +1227,7 @@ function userRowHtml(handle, u, opts = {}) { ${avatar}
${esc(u.name || handle)}${verifiedBadgeHtml(u)}
-
@${esc(handle)}
+
@${esc(handle)}${ageBadgeHtml(u)}
${right}
`; @@ -1353,7 +1410,7 @@ function topEngagementRowHtml(e) { return `
- @${esc(handle)}${verifiedBadgeHtml(it)} + @${esc(handle)}${verifiedBadgeHtml(it)}${ageBadgeHtml(it)} ${dateLabel} ${e.engagement.toLocaleString()} interactions
@@ -1499,7 +1556,7 @@ function itemCardHtml(it) { return `
- ${it.author ? '@' + esc(it.author) : 'Unknown'}${verifiedBadgeHtml(it.item)} + ${it.author ? '@' + esc(it.author) : 'Unknown'}${verifiedBadgeHtml(it.item)}${ageBadgeHtml(it.item)} ${SENT_LABELS[it.label]} ${dateLabel} ${scoreLabel}