Advertisement

Abstract

Product reviews have been the focus of numerous research efforts. In particular, the problem of identifying fake reviews has recently attracted significant interest. Writing fake reviews is a form of attack, performed to purposefully harm or boost an item’s reputation. The effective identification of such reviews is a fundamental problem that affects the performance of virtually every application based on review corpora. While recent work has explored different aspects of the problem, no effort has been done to view the problem from the attacker’s perspective. In this work, we perform an analysis that emulates an actual attack on a real review corpus. We discuss different attack strategies, as well as the various contributing factors that determine the attack’s impact. These factors determine, among others, the authenticity of fake review, evaluated based on its linguistic features and its ability to blend in with the rest of the corpus. Our analysis and experimental evaluation provide interesting findings on the nature of fake reviews and the vulnerability of online review-corpora.

Keywords

Opinion Mining Sentiment Analysis Negative Opinion Product Review Attack Strategy 
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.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Dellarocas, C.: Immunizing online reputation reporting systems against unfair ratings and discriminatory behavior. In: EC 2000, pp. 150–157. ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ding, X., Liu, B., Yu, P.S.: A holistic lexicon-based approach to opinion mining. In: WSDM 2008, pp. 231–240. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duan, W., Gu, B., Whinston, A.B.: Do Online Reviews Matter? - An Empirical Investigation of Panel Data. Social Science Research Network Working Paper Series (November 2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flesch, R.: A new readability yardstick. J. Appl. Psychol. 32, 221–224 (1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flesch, R.: The Art of Readable Writing. Harper and Row (1949)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hankin, L.: The effects of user reviews on online purchasing behavior across multiple product categories. PhD thesis (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hu, M., Liu, B.: Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In: KDD 2004, pp. 168–177. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jindal, N., Liu, B.: Analyzing and detecting review spam. In: ICDM, pp. 547–552 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jindal, N., Liu, B.: Review spam detection. In: WWW 2007, pp. 1189–1190. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jindal, N., Liu, B.: Opinion spam and analysis. In: WSDM 2008, pp. 219–230. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jindal, N., Liu, B., Lim, E.-P.: Finding unusual review patterns using unexpected rules. In: CIKM 2010, pp. 1549–1552. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Korfiatis, N., Rodríguez, D., Sicilia, M.-Á.: The Impact of Readability on the Usefulness of Online Product Reviews: A Case Study on an Online Bookstore. In: Lytras, M.D., Damiani, E., Tennyson, R.D. (eds.) WSKS 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5288, pp. 423–432. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lappas, T., Gunopulos, D.: Efficient Confident Search in Large Review Corpora. In: Balcázar, J.L., Bonchi, F., Gionis, A., Sebag, M. (eds.) ECML PKDD 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6322, pp. 195–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lim, E.-P., Nguyen, V.-A., Jindal, N., Liu, B., Lauw, H.W.: Detecting product review spammers using rating behaviors. In: CIKM 2010, pp. 939–948. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mackiewicz, J.: Reviewer motivations, bias, and credibility in online reviews. In: Kelsey, S., Amant, K.S. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Computer Mediated Communication, pp. 252–266. IGI Global (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., Wang, J., Glance, N.S., Jindal, N.: Detecting group review spam. In: WWW (Companion Volume), pp. 93–94 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Mahony, M.P., Smyth, B.: Using readability tests to predict helpful product reviews. In: RIAO 2010, Paris, France, pp. 164–167 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pang, B., Lee, L.: Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found. Trends Inf. Retr. 2, 1–135 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Park, D.-H., Lee, J., Han, I.: The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. Int. J. Electron. Commerce 11(4), 125–148 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Popescu, A.-M., Etzioni, O.: Extracting product features and opinions from reviews. In: HLT 2005, pp. 339–346. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reinstein, D.A., Snyder, C.M.: The influence of expert reviews on consumer demand for experience goods: A case study of movie critics. Journal of Industrial Economics 53(1), 27–51 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsaparas, P., Ntoulas, A., Terzi, E.: Selecting a comprehensive set of reviews. In: KDD, pp. 168–176 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang, G., Xie, S., Liu, B., Yu, P.S.: Review graph based online store review spammer detection. In: IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 1242–1247 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu, G., Greene, D., Smyth, B., Cunningham, P.: Distortion as a validation criterion in the identification of suspicious reviews. Technical report (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhuang, L., Jing, F., Zhu, X.-Y.: Movie review mining and summarization. In: CIKM 2006, pp. 43–50. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theodoros Lappas
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science Dept.Boston UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations