Trust and Reputation Mining in Professional Virtual Communities

  • Florian Skopik
  • Hong-Linh Truong
  • Schahram Dustdar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5648)


Communication technologies, such as e-mail, instant messaging, discussion forums, blogs, and newsgroups connect people together, forming virtual communities. This concept is not only used for private purposes, but is also attracting attention in professional environments, allowing to consult a large group of experts. Due to the overwhelming size of such communities, various reputation mechanisms have been proposed supporting members with information about people’s trustworthiness with respect to their contributions. However, most of today’s approaches rely on manual and subjective feedback, suffering from unfair ratings, discrimination, and feedback quality variations over time.

To this end, we propose a system which determines trust relationships between community members automatically and objectively by mining communication data. In contrast to other approaches which use these data directly, e.g., by applying natural language processing on log files, we follow a new approach to make contributions visible. We perform structural analysis of discussions, examine interaction patterns between members, and infer social roles expressing motivation, openness to discussions, and willingness to share data, and therefore trust.


Mining Algorithm Online Discussion Score Rank Trust Relationship Virtual Community 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C.: A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems 43(2), 618–644 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Economist: The role of trust in business collaboration. An Economist Intelligence Unit briefing paper sponsored by Cisco Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    IBM: An architectural blueprint for autonomic computing. Whitepaper (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Welser, H.T., Gleave, E., Fisher, D., Smith, M.: Visualizing the signatures of social roles in online discussion groups. Journal of Social Structure 8 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nonnecke, B., Preece, J., Andrews, D.: What lurkers and posters think of each other. In: HICSS (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meyer, K.A.: Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal for Asynchronous Learning Networks 7(3), 55–65 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McLure-Wasko, M., Faraj, S.: Why should i share? examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks. MIS Quarterly 29(1), 35–57 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rheingold, H.: The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier, revised edition. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Massa, P.: A survey of trust use and modeling in real online systems (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gyngyi, Z., Garcia-Molina, H., Pedersen, J.: Combating web spam with trustrank. In: VLDB, pp. 576–587 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., Winograd, T.: The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical report, Stanford University (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kleinberg, J.M.: Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM 46(5), 604–632 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kamvar, S.D., Schlosser, M.T., Garcia-Molina, H.: The eigentrust algorithm for reputation management in p2p networks. In: WWW, pp. 640–651 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gomez, V., Kaltenbrunner, A., Lopez, V.: Statistical analysis of the social network and discussion threads in slashdot. In: WWW, pp. 645–654. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Massa, P., Avesani, P.: Controversial users demand local trust metrics: An experimental study on community. In: AAAI, pp. 121–126 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Skopik, F., Truong, H.L., Dustdar, S.: VieTE - enabling trust emergence in service-oriented collaborative environments. In: WEBIST, pp. 471–478 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mui, L.: Computational models of trust and reputation: Agents, evolutionary games, and social networks. Ph.D thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (December 2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grandison, T., Sloman, M.: A survey of trust in internet applications. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials 3(4) (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marsh, S.P.: Formalising trust as a computational concept. Ph.D thesis, University of Stirling (April 1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McKnight, D.H., Chervany, N.L.: The meanings of trust. Technical report, University of Minnesota (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wanas, N.M., El-Saban, M., Ashour, H., Ammar, W.: Automatic scoring of online discussion posts. In: WICOW, pp. 19–26. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feng, D., Shaw, E., Kim, J., Hovy, E.H.: Learning to detect conversation focus of threaded discussions. In: HLT-NAACL. The Association for Computational Linguistics (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Billhardt, H., Hermoso, R., Ossowski, S., Centeno, R.: Trust-based service provider selection in open environments. In: SAC, pp. 1375–1380. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huynh, T.D., Jennings, N.R., Shadbolt, N.R.: An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 13(2), 119–154 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Skopik
    • 1
  • Hong-Linh Truong
    • 1
  • Schahram Dustdar
    • 1
  1. 1.Distributed Systems GroupVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations