Thank you for taking such a strong interest in the blog posts.

1) The normalisation of the closeness for weighted networks does not force the measure to be between 0 and 1. As a theoretical maximum value is not defined, it is not possible to divide the non-normalised scores by such a value. See these comments for more information on why I don’t think normalisation is appropriate (one;two).

2) All the one-mode measures in tnet, except the local clustering coefficient, are designed to be applicable to directed networks as well as undirected networks, including this one.

3) To get the average weight, you sum the tie weights and divide by number of ties.

4) This diagram was supposed to highlight how the tie weights are altered before they are inverted. I have clarified this above now. Whether they are “normalised” or inverted first is irrelevant.

Hope this helps,
Tore

I am greatly thankful to u for these posts….they have helped me a lot…..to add to it,can u do the following confirmations about this article?

1-In your solution for graphs with disconnected components you used inversed distances and for the normalized closeness you use the following definition,
sum of all inversed distance/number of nodes-1
is it applicable here for weighted networks too? i think it is but again need your opinion too.

2- Also tell me will it be safe to use this solution for directed plus weighted networks where e.g. a route from A to C via B exists but no route from C to A exist via B? I dont think there is any harm in it but still need your opinion.

3- When u suggest to “normalise” the weights by the average weight in the above network, u calculate it to be (4+4+2+2+1+1)/6=2.33………are u using the number of links(6) or the number of nodes(6) in the denominator? i think it is the number of links but still need your confirmation.

4-in the last diagram, weights should be like this 2.33/x and not like this x/2.33……..am i right?

waiting for an urgent reply……it wil be v helpful indeed

Regards,
Sadia.

You are absolutely correct. The values should have been the other way around. Will upload a new diagram soon.

Tore