Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

At its heart the act of reviewing is very subjective, but in reality many factors would influence user’s decision. This can be called social influence bias. We pick two factors, “Who” and “When” and discuss which factor is more influential when a user posts his/her own rate in an online review system. We consider two kinds of users: real and virtual. In the former each user has its own metric, but in the latter the metric is assigned to the order of review posting actions (rating). We propose a weighted multinomial generative model that can learn the factor metric quite efficiently from a vast amount of data already available in many online review systems. If the model can explain the data well enough, this implies that such a social bias does exist. We evaluate the proposed method and confirm its effectiveness by five review datasets, and empirically clarify that there is no universal solution, but the social bias does exist. In reality the influential factor depends on each dataset, the majority of users is normal (average), and there are two small groups of users, each with high metric value and low metric value.

Keywords

Social media influence review score machine learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brin

and Page

, The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 30 (1998), 107–117.

Cosley

Lam

S.K.

Albert

Konstan

J.A.

and Riedl

, Is Seeing Believing?: How Recommender System Interfaces Affect Users’ Opinions, in: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems (CHI’03), 2003, pp. 585–592.

Even-Dar

and Shapria

, A note on maximizing the spread of influence in social networks, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics (WINE’07), 2007, pp. 281–286.

Forsati

Bariasteh

Masrour

Esfahanian

A.H.

and Radha

, PushTrust: An Efficient Recommendation Algorithm by Leveraging Trust and Distrust Relations, in: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys’15), 2015, pp. 51–58.

Golbeck

, Generating predictive movie recommendations from trust in social networks, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Trust Management (iTrust’06), 2006, pp. 93–104.

Harper

F.M.

and Konstan

J.A.

, The MovieLens datasets: history and context, ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 5 (2015), 19:1–19:19.

Jamali

and Ester

, A matrix factorization technique with trust propagation for recommendation in social networks, in: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys’10), 2010, pp. 135–142.

Kleinberg

, Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment, Journal of the ACM 46 (1999), 604–632.

Koren

, Factorization meets the neighborhood: A multifaceted collaborative filtering model, in: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’08), 2008, pp. 426–434.

10.

Krishnan

Patel

Franklin

M.J.

and Goldberg

, A Methodology for Learning, Analyzing, and Mitigating Social Influence Bias in Recommender System, in: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys’14), 2014, pp. 137–144.

11.

Yang

Lyu

M.R.

and King

, Sorec: Social recommendation using probabilistic matrix factorization, in: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’08), 2008, pp. 931–940.

12.

King

and Lyu

M.R.

, Learning to recommend with social trust ensemble, in: Proceedings of the 32nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development (SIGIR’09), 2009, pp. 203–210.

13.

Zhou

Liu

Lyu

M.R.

and King

, Recommender systems with social regularization, in: Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM’11), 2011, pp. 287–296.

14.

Massa

and Avesani

, Trust-aware recommender systems, in: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys’07), 2007, pp. 17–24.

15.

Michael

and Otterbacher

, Write like I write: Herding in the language of online reviews, in: Proceedings of the Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM’14), 2014, pp. 356–365.

16.

Pan

Cong

Chen

and Yu

, Diffusion-aware Personalized Social Update Recommendation, in: Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys’13), 2013, pp. 69–76.

17.

Saito

Kimura

ohara

and Motoda

, Efficient learning of user conformity on review score, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction (SBP2015), 2015, pp. 182–195.

18.

Salakhutdinov

and Mnih

, Probabilistic matrix factorization, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 20 (NIPS’07), 2008, pp. 791–798.

19.

Sood

and Redner

, Voter model on heterogeneous graphs, Physical Review Letters 94 (2005), 178701.

20.

Tang

Gao

and Liu

, mtrust: Discerning multi-faceted trust in a connected world, in: Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM’12), 2012, pp. 93–102.

21.

Tang

Gao

and Liu

, Exploiting local and global social context for recommendation, in: Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’13), 2013, pp. 2712–2718.

Which is more influential,“Who” or “When” for a user to rate in online review site?

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References