Advertisement

Multi-facets Quality Assessment of Online Opinionated Expressions

  • Raymond Y. K. Lau
  • Wenping Zhang
  • Yunqing Xia
  • Dawei Song
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6724)

Abstract

In the Web 2.0 era, there has been an explosive growth of user-contributed data on the Web. Among the user-contributed data, the sheer volume of online reviews (or comments) provide enterprise with invaluable market intelligence about potential customers’ preferences for various products and services. However, there has been growing concerns about the quality of these uncontrolled user-contributed online reviews. Despite numerous research work has been conducted on opinion mining and opinion retrieval, little work has been done to develop effective quality metrics to assess the quality of opinionated expressions. To discover rich and accurate business intelligence from online opinionated expressions, an objective quality-based filtering process is essential for any opinion mining systems. The main contribution of this paper is the design, development, and evaluation of a novel multi-facet quality metric for the assessment of the informativeness of opinionated expressions such as online product reviews. Our preliminary experiments show that the proposed multi-facets quality metric is more effective than a quality assessment approach constructed based on user-generated helpful votes.

Keywords

Opinion Mining Online Review Product Review Sentiment Lexicon Opinionated Expression 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Oreilly, T.: What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies 1 (2007), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1008839
  2. 2.
    Dellarocas, C.: Strategic manipulation of internet opinion forums: Implications for consumers and firms. Management Science 52, 1577–1593 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jindal, N., Liu, B.: Analyzing and detecting review spam. In: Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 547–552 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu, G., Greene, D., Cunningham, P.: Merging multiple criteria to identify suspicious reviews. In: Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Conference on Recommender systems, pp. 241–244 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang, Z.: Weighing stars: Aggregating online product reviews for intelligent E-commerce applications. IEEE Intelligent Systems 23(5), 42–49 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rieh, S.Y.: Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the web. JASIST 53(2), 145–161 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhu, X., Gauch, S.: Incorporating quality metrics in centralized/distributed information retrieval on the world wide web. In: Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 288–295 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    MacDonald, C., Ounis, I., Soboroff, I.: Is spam an issue for opinionated blog post search? In: Proceedings of the 32nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 710–711 (July 2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu, J., Cao, Y., Lin, C.Y., Huang, Y., Zhou, M.: Low-quality product review detection in opinion summarization. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pp. 334–342. ACL (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Kossinets, G., Kleinberg, J., Lee, L.: How opinions are received by online communities: a case study on amazon.com helpfulness votes. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 141–150. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghose, A., Ipeirotis, P.G.: Designing novel review ranking systems: predicting the usefulness and impact of reviews. In: Gini, M.L., Kauffman, R.J., Sarppo, D., Dellarocas, C., Dignum, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Electronic Commerce, vol. 258, pp. 303–310. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim, S.M., Pantel, P., Chklovski, T., Pennacchiotti, M.: Automatically assessing review helpfulness. In: Jurafsky, D., Gaussier, É. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 423–430. ACL (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu, Y., Huang, X., An, A., Yu, X.: Helpmeter: A nonlinear model for predicting the helpfulness of online reviews. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Web Intelligence, pp. 793–796. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, Y., Huang, X., An, A., Yu, X.: Modeling and predicting the helpfulness of online reviews. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 443–452. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jindal, N., Liu, B.: Opinion spam and analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Web Search and Web Data Mining, pp. 219–229 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salton, G., McGill, M.: Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. McGraw-Hill, New York (1983)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Porter, M.: An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program 14(3), 130–137 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miller, G.A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., Miller, K.J.: Introduction to wordnet: An on-line lexical database. Journal of Lexicography 3(4), 234–244 (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Riloff, E.M., Wiebe, J.: Learning extraction patterns for subjective expressions. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 105–112. Association for Computational Linguistics (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Joachims, T.: Making large–scale svm learning practical. In: Schölkopf, B., Burges, C.J.C., Smola, A.J. (eds.) Advances in Kernel Methods - Support Vector Learning, MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu, X., Croft, B.: Cluster-based retrieval using language models. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 186–193 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ponte, J.M., Croft, W.B.: A language modeling approach to information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 275–281 (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martinez-Romo, J., Araujo, L.: Web spam identification through language model analysis. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web, pp. 21–28 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mishne, G., Carmel, D., Lempel, R.: Blocking blog spam with language model disagreement. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web, pp. 1–6 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lau, R., Lai, C., Li, Y.: Leveraging the web context for context-sensitive opinion mining. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, pp. 467–471. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lai, C., Xu, K., Lau, R., Li, Y., Jing, L.: Toward a language modeling approach for consumer review spam detection. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering, pp. 1–8. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kullback, S., Leibler, R.A.: On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22, 79–86 (1951)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lafferty, J., Zhai, C.: Document language models, query models, and risk minimization for information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 111–119 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond Y. K. Lau
    • 1
  • Wenping Zhang
    • 1
  • Yunqing Xia
    • 2
  • Dawei Song
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsCity University of Hong KongKowloonHong Kong SAR
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and TechnologyTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.School of ComputingThe Robert Gordon UniversityAberdeenU.K.

Personalised recommendations