Advertisement

A Trust Framework for the Collection of Reliable Crowd-Sourced Data

  • Shiva RamoudithEmail author
  • Patrick Hosein
Conference paper
  • 26 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1130)

Abstract

With increasing access to the Internet through a multitude of devices, it is relatively easy to collect data from the public through a process called crowd-sourcing. Unfortunately, this approach has two problems: enticing users to contribute data, and determining if users have provided accurate data. The problem of inaccurate responses is compounded when a group of malicious users intentionally skew survey results in order to benefit themselves in some way. The first issue can be addressed through incentives, but this increases the need to solve the second issue since it is likely that users would produce fake data in order to obtain more of the offered incentives. We present a simple trust framework for addressing the issue of data quality in surveys, and illustrate its use with a real-world example. In this model, users are given access to the platform only when trusted users on the platform vouch for them. Although not fool proof, it does increase the quality of the collected data. Access to the survey results is used to incentivize users. We compared our solution to a traditional internet survey; we found that our solution reduced the number of invalid submissions by 9.29%.

Keywords

Trust framework Trust modelling Survey platform Social network Data science Data integrity 

References

  1. 1.
    Sherchan, W., Nepal, S., Paris, C.: A survey of trust in social networks. ACM Comput. Surv. 45(4), 47:1–47:33 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2501654.2501661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DuBois, T., Golbeck, J., Srinivasan, A.: Predicting trust and distrust in social networks. In: 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing, pp. 418–424, October 2011Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Massa, P., Avesani, P.: Trust-aware recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys 2007, pp. 17–24. ACM, New York (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1297231.1297235
  4. 4.
    Artz, D., Gil, Y.: A survey of trust in computer science and the semantic web. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 5(2), 58–71 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang, Y., Vassileva, J.: Bayesian network-based trust model in peer-to-peer networks. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, pp. 57–68. Citeseer (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T.M., Pillutla, M.M.: A formal model of trust based on outcomes. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23(3), 459–472 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhao, K., Pan, L.: A machine learning based trust evaluation framework for online social networks. In: 2014 IEEE 13th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications, pp. 69–74, September 2014Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Massa, P., Avesani, P.: Trust metrics on controversial users: balancing between tyranny of the majority. Int. J. Semant. Web Inf. Syst. (IJSWIS) 3(1), 39–64 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cho, J.H., Chan, K., Adali, S.: A survey on trust modeling. ACM Comput. Surv. 48(2), 28:1–28:40 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2815595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guha, R., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P., Tomkins, A.: Propagation of trust and distrust. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2004, pp. 403–412. ACM, New York (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1145/988672.988727
  11. 11.
    Roztocki, N.: Using internet-based surveys for academic research: opportunities and problems. In: Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Management (ASEM) National Conference, pp. 290–295 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Curran, P.G.: Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 66, 4–19 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Curran, P., Hauser, D.: Understanding responses to check items: a verbal protocol analysis. In: Philadelphia, PA: Paper presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chandola, V., Banerjee, A., Kumar, V.: Anomaly detection: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 41(3), 15 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramoudith, S., Hosein, P.: A metric for the fair comparison of ISPs (To be presented at the Sixth International Conference on Internet Science in December 2019)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of the West IndiesSt. AugustineTrinidad and Tobago

Personalised recommendations