Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 799–820 | Cite as

Mentor-spotting: recommending expert mentors to mentees for live trouble-shooting in Codementor

  • Cheng-Te LiEmail author
Regular Paper


Live mentoring services are recent novel social media, in which mentees can input expertise requests and wait for accepting some expert mentor who is willing to tackle the requests in a live and one-by-one manner. While mentee’s satisfaction of being mentored is determined by the matched mentor, it is crucial to have an effective mentor–mentee matching. This paper aims at recommending mentors based on the requests in Codementor, which is one of the popular live mentoring services. An accurate mentor recommendation will support the mentees’ decisions in finding suitable mentors, support the mentors’ decisions in filtering out irrelevant requests, and support the mentoring services’ decisions in assigning mentors to mentees. We divide the mentor recommendation problem into two tasks, Mentor Willingness Prediction (MWP) and Mentee Acceptance Prediction (MAP). MWP is to predict whether a mentor is willing to tackle a request, while MAP is to predict whether a mentee user will accept a recommended mentor. We propose to simultaneously deal with such two tasks by recommending a ranked list of mentors such that the recommended mentors who are really willing to tackle the request are as many as possible (MWP) and the final mentor who is accepted by the mentee can be ranked as high as possible (MAP). We develop four categories of features, availability, capability, activity, and proximity, to model the willingness of a mentor dealing with the request and the potential of a mentee to accept the recommended mentor. By applying various supervised learning methods, experimental results show the effectiveness of these features and provide extensive analyses to reveal more factors that can affect the quality of mentor recommendation. In addition, we also conduct a user study on Codementor platform to exhibit the practical performance of the proposed method. The innovation of this work includes the formulation of MWP and MAP problem in online mentoring services, feature engineering for mentoring prediction tasks, and data-driven experimental studies in prediction and a practical user study.


Mentoring analysis Mentor Willingness Prediction Mentee Acceptance Prediction Live mentoring services Codementor 



This work was sponsored by Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) of Taiwan under Grant 107-2636-E-006-002, 106-3114-E-006-002, 107-2218-E-006-040, and 106-2628-E-006-005-MY3, and, and also by Academia Sinica under grant AS-107-TP-A05. This work is also a industrial collaboration project with Codementor, and we sincerely thank for the technical support from the data science team of Codementor.


  1. 1.
    Akehurst J, Koprinska I, Yacef K, Pizzato L, Kay J, Rej T (2011) CCR—a content-collaborative reciprocal recommender for online dating. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp 2199–2204Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouguessa M, Dumoulin B, Wang S (2008) Identifying authoritative actors in question-answering forums: the case of Yahoo! answers. In: Proceedings of KDD, pp 866–874Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burges CJC (2010) From RankNet to LambdaRank to LambdaMART: an overview. Microsoft research technical report, MSR-TR-2010-82Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang S, Pal A (2013) Routing questions for collaborative answering in community question answering. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ACM ASONAM, pp 494–501Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choy M, Lee J-G, Gweon G, Kim D (2014) Glaucus: exploiting the wisdom of crowds for location-based queries in mobile environments. In: Proceedings of ICWSM, pp 61–70Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diaz F, Metzler D, Amer-Yahia S (2010) Relevance and ranking in online dating systems. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGIR, pp 66–73Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dror G, Koren Y, Maarek Y, Szpektor I (2011) I want to answer; who has a question? Yahoo! answers recommender system. In: Proceedings of KDD, pp 1109–1117Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gkotsis G, Stepanyan K, Pedrinaci C, Domingue J, Liakata M (2014) It’s all in the content: state of the art best answer prediction based on discretisation of shallow linguistic features. In: Proceedings of ACM WebSci, pp 202–210Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hong W, Li L, Li T, Pan W (2013) iHR: an online recruiting system for Xiamen Talent Service Center. In: Proceedings of KDD, pp 1177–1185Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ji Z, Wang B (2013) Learning to rank for question routing in community question answering. In: Proceedings of ACM CIKM, pp 2363–2368Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jurczyk P, Agichtein E (2007) Discovering authorities in question answer communities by using link analysis. In: Proceedings of ACM CIKM, pp 919–922Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kutty S, Nayak R, Chen L (2014) A people-to-people matching system using graph mining techniques. World Wide Web J 17:311–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li L, Li T (2012) MEET: a generalized framework for reciprocal recommendation systems. In: Proceedings of ACM CIKM, pp 35–44Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pizzato L, Rej T, Chung T, Koprinska I, Kay J (2010) RECON: a reciprocal recommender for online dating. In: Proceedings of ACM recommender systems, pp 207–214Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pizzato L, Rej T, Yacef K, Koprinska I, Kay J (2011) Finding someone you will like and who won’t reject you. In: Proceedings of international conference on user modeling, adaption and personalization (UMAP), pp 269–280Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riahi F, Zolaktaf Z, Shafiei S, Milios E (2012) Finding expert users in community question answering. In: WWW 2012 companion (CQA workshop), pp 791–798Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shi Y, Karatzoglou A, Baltrunas L, Larson M, Oliver N, Hanjalic A (2012) CLiMF: learning to maximize reciprocal rank with collaborative less-is-more filtering. In: Proceedings of ACM RecSys, pp 139–146Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tian Q, Zhang P, Li B (2013) Towards predicting the best answers in community-based question-answering services. In: Proceedings of ICWSM, pp 725–728Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tong H, Faloutsos C, Pan J-Y (2006) Fast random walk with restart and its applications. In: Proceedings of IEEE ICDM, pp 613–622Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xia P, Jiang H, Wang X, Chen C, Liu B (2014) Predicting user replying behavior on a large online dating site. In: Proceedings of ICWSM, pp 545–554Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xia P, Liu B, Sun Y, Chen C (2015) Reciprocal recommendation system for online dating. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ACM ASONAM, pp 234–241Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang B, Manandhar S (2014) Tag-based expert recommendation in community question answering. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ACM ASONAM, pp 960–963Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhao K, Wang X, Yu M, Gao B (2014) User recommendations in reciprocal and bipartite social networks-an online dating case study. IEEE Intell. Syst. 29(2):27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhao Z, Wei F, Zhou M, Ng W (2015) Cold-start expert finding in community question answering via graph regularization. In: Proceedings of DASFAA, pp 21–38Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Statistics, Institute of Data ScienceNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan

Personalised recommendations