Electronic Commerce Research

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 277–289 | Cite as

The evaluation for perceived quality of products based on text mining and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation

  • Lifeng He
  • Ning Zhang
  • Lemin Yin


With the growth of the Internet and electronic commerce, more and more customers browse online reviews to understand products and service reputation. Online reviews can provide decision support for customers to purchase a product that is to their satisfaction. Manufacturers can also mine and analyze valuable information in favor of design and production from online reviews. Customer satisfaction is mainly determined by perceived quality of products. Hence, this study establishes a new method to evaluate the perceived quality by combining text mining with a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. The new evaluation method offers ideas and methods for future work to combine text mining technology with traditional evaluation methods. Customers can also make better purchase decisions and manufacturers design and manufacture better products by using this evaluation method.


Online shopping review Text mining Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method Product evaluation 



This research is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (71403138), the Shandong Humanities and Social Sciences Research Program of Colleges and Universities (J16YF15), and the Qingdao Social Science Program (QDSKL1601077).


  1. 1.
    Bai, C. (2001). Western customer value research and practice implications. Nankai Business Review, 4(2), 51–55.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liang, Y. (2003). Study on some problems of customer satisfaction index. Statistical Research, 20(11), 52–56.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oliver, R. L., Shor, M., & Tidd, S. T. (2004). Induced over-benefiting and under-benefiting on the web: Inequity effects on feelings and motivations with implications for consumption behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 28(1), 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Snoj, B., Korda, A. P., & Mumel, D. (2004). The relationships among perceived quality, perceived risk and perceived product value. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13(3), 156–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ye, R., Tang, W. J., & Xu, K. T. (2009). China customer satisfaction evaluation model and application. Working paper, Customer Satisfaction Evaluation Center of China Standardization Research Institute.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li, B., Xu, X., & Zhang, J. X. (2014). Research on product evaluation method by using micro-blog data—Taking “Android system” as an Example. Modern Library and Information Technology, 4, 92–98.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang, L. L. (2014). Product evaluation methods in the era of big data—A case study of the text data analysis of the customer’s online comments. Luojia Management Review, 1, 129–141.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Qian, J., Fan, B., Wu, X., Han, S., Liu, S., & Yang, X. (2016). Comprehensive and quantifiable granularity: A novel model to measure agro-food traceability. Food Control, 74, 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kumar, P., & Singh, D. (2011). Integrating data mining and AHP for life insurance product recommendation. Computational Intelligence and Information Technology (pp. 596–602). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pang, B., Lee, L., & Vaithyanathan, S. (2002). Thumbs up?: Sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. In Acl-02 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 79–86). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Godbole, N., Srinivasaiah, M., & Skiena, S. (2007). Large-scale sentiment analysis for news and blogs. In International conference on weblogs and social media (pp. 219–222).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin, C., & He, Y. (2009). Joint sentiment/topic model for sentiment analysis. In ACM Conference on information and knowledge management (Vol. 217, pp. 375–384). ACM.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Popescu, A. M. (2005). Extracting product features and opinions from reviews. In Hlt/emnlp on interactive demonstrations (pp. 32–33). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Turney, P. D. (2002). Thumbs up or thumbs down?: Semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. In Proceedings of annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, (pp. 417–424).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gao, T., Song, J. Y., Ding, J. H., & Wang, D. Q. (2017). Clustering algorithm based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation for wireless sensor networks. International Journal of Wireless Information Networks, 24(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhou, R., & Chan, A. H. S. (2017). Using a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to determine product usability: A test case. Work, 56(1), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jin, J. L., Wei, Y. M., & Ding, J. (2004). Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model based on improved analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2, 144–147.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessQingdao UniversityQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations