Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Users Views on Others – Analysis of Confused Relation-Based Terms in Social Network

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2016 Conferences (OTM 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10033))

Abstract

Nowadays, online social networks are used everywhere. Thus, areas such as social network analysis or recommender systems are currently very important. Roles related to relations between users, concerning influential, trusted or popular individuals are known to be crucial in these areas. While the significance of such roles is undeniable, the terms connected to these roles are not precisely specified and generally confused. In this article, we focus on the roles of users connected to terms trust, reputation, influence and popularity in the scope of social network analysis and social recommendations. We analyze existing works using these roles in order to compare and contrast their interpretations. We emphasize the most important features that the definitions of these notions should include and make the comparative analysis of the most often confused terms: trust vs reputation, and influence vs popularity. We also present the notions global classification concerning their abstract level, define the terms and distinguish them from one another.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Online retailer, site: http://www.amazon.com/.

  2. 2.

    http://www.imdb.com/.

  3. 3.

    Online social networking service, site: www.twitter.com.

  4. 4.

    Let us consider the simplest scenario of elections where we can say that the reputation value is evaluated. In the election process, each person specifies binary, local “trust” (by choosing the person – value 1 or choosing somebody else – value 0). Then, the votes are computed – summed up, and the winner is the individual with the majority of votes, hence the highest reputation.

  5. 5.

    This also differs terms reputation and trust, since, in contrary, one can claim to “not have trust to somebody” meaning not having neither positive (trusting) relation nor negative one (distrusting).

References

  1. Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Distrust. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distrust. Accessed 28 May 2015

  2. Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Influence. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/influence. Accessed 11 May 2015

  3. Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Reputation. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reputation. Accessed 05 May 2016

  4. Oxford Dictionary: Distrust. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/distrust. Accessed 28 May 2015

  5. Agarwal, N., Liu, H., Tang, L., Yu, P.S.: Identifying the influential bloggers in a community. In: Najork, M., Broder, A.Z., Chakrabarti, S. (eds.) WSDM, pp. 207–218. ACM (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Aida, M., Koto, H.: Structure and Dynamics of Social Networks Revealed by Data Analysis of Actual Communication Services. In: Handbook of Social Network Technologies and Applications, pp. 23–43. Springer, US (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Alexandridis, G., Siolas, G., Stafylopatis, A.: Improving Social Recommendations by applying a Personalized Item Clustering Policy. RSWeb@ RecSys (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Aral, S., Walker, D.: Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks. Science 337, 337–341 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Bedi, P., Sharma, R.: Trust based recommender system using ant colony for trust computation. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 1183–1190 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bhuiyan, T., Xu, Y., Jøsang, A., Liang, H., Cox, C.: Developing trust networks based on user tagging information for recommendation making. In: Chen, L., Triantafillou, P., Suel, T. (eds.) WISE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6488, pp. 357–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17616-6_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Chaney, A.J.B.: A Probabilistic Model for Using Social Networks in Personalized Item Recommendation (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chaney, A.J., Blei, D.M., Eliassi-Rad, T.: A probabilistic model for using social networks in personalized item recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys 2015 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cutillo, L.A., Manulis, M., Strufe, T.: Security and Privacy in Online Social Networks. In: Handbook of Social Network Technologies and Applications. Springer, US (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Erinaki, M., Monga, S.P.S., Sundaram, S.: Identification of influential social networkers. J. Int. J. Web Based Communities 8(2), 136–158 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Forsati, R., Barjasteh, I., Masrour, F., Esfahanian, A.H., Radha, H.: Pushtrust: an efficient recommendation algorithm by leveraging trust and distrust relations, pp. 51–58 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fu-Guo, Z., Sheng-Hua, X.: Topic-level trust in recommender systems, pp. 156–161 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gliwa, B., Zygmunt, A.: Finding influential bloggers. CoRR abs/1505.06926 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Golbeck, J., Hendler, J.: Accuracy of metrics for inferring trust and reputation in semantic web-based social networks. In: Motta, E., Shadbolt, N.R., Stutt, A., Gibbins, N. (eds.) EKAW 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3257, pp. 116–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30202-5_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Grabner-Kräuter, S., Bitter, S.: Trust in online social networks: a multifaceted perspective. Forum Soc. Econ. 44(1), 48–68 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Guo, G., Zhang, J., Thalmann, D., Basu, A., Yorke-smith, N.: From ratings to trust: an empirical study of implicit trust in recommender systems. In: Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 248–253 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hamdi, S.: Doctor of Philosophy Thesis: Computational models of trust and reputation in online social networks, University Saclay, Paris (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Harrison McKnight, D., Chervany, N.L.: Trust and distrust definitions: one bite at a time. In: Falcone, R., Singh, M., Tan, Y.-H. (eds.) Trust in Cyber-societies. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2246, pp. 27–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi:10.1007/3-540-45547-7_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Jin, J., Chen, Q.: A trust-based Top-K recommender system using social tagging network. In: Proceedings - 2012 9th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, FSKD 2012 (Fskd), pp. 1270–1274 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C.: A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis. Support Syst. 43(2), 618–644 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Keller, E., Berry, J.: The Influentials: One American in Ten Tells the Other Nine How to Vote, Where to Eat, and What to Buy. Free Press (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Keller, E., Berry, J.: The Influentials: One American in Ten Tells the Other Nine How to Vote, Where to Eat, and What to Buy. Free Press

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lansu, T.A.M., Cillessen, A.H.N.: Peer status in emerging adulthood: associations of popularity and preference with social roles and behavior. J. Adolesc. Res. 27(1), 132–150 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lin, C.C., Lin, T.S., Liu, W.Y.: A trust and distrust mechanism for a social network-based recommendation system. In: WPMC, pp. 172–176. IEEE (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lumbreras, A., Gavaldà, R.: Applying trust metrics based on user interactions to recommendation in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, pp. 1159–1164 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ma, H., Lyu, M.R., King, I.: Learning to recommend with trust and distrust relationships. In: Proceedings of the Third ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys 2009 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Massa, P., Avesani, P.: Trust-aware recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys 2007 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  32. McNally, K., O’Mahony, M.P., Smyth, B.: A comparative study of collaboration-based reputation models for social recommender systems. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 24(3), 219–260 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Meyffret, S., Lionel, M., Laforest, F.: Trust-based local and social recommendation. In: RecSys RSWeb 2012: Proceedings of the 4th ACM RecSys Workshop on Recommender Systems and the Social Web, pp. 53–60 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Moghaddam, M.G., Mustapha, N., Mustapha, A., Mohd Sharef, N., Elahian, A.: AgeTrust: A new temporal trust-based collaborative filtering approach- In press. In: The 5th International Conference on Information Science & Applications (ICISA 2014), pp. 1–4 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M.: A computational model of trust and reputation. In: Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  36. O’Donovan, J., Smyth, B.: Trust in recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI 2005 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ozsoy, M.G., Polat, F.: Trust based recommendation systems, pp. 1267–1274 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rakoczy, M.: M. Sc. Thesis: Identification of Influential Users in Selected Social Networks.: AGH University of Science and Technology. Cracow, Poland (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rashotte, L.: Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology Online: Influence. http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/fragr_image/media/social. Accessed 27 April 2016

  40. Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J., Bies, R.J.: Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23(3), 438–458 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sarda, K., Gupta, P., Mukherjee, D., Padhy, S., Saran, H.: A Distributed Trust-based Recommendation System on Social Networks. Simulation (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Singh, S., Mishra, N., Sharma, S.: Survey of various techniques for determining influential users in social networks. In: International Conference on Emerging Trends in Computing, Communication and Nanotechnology (ICE-CCN) (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Stopfer, J.M., Egloff, B., Nestler, S., Back, M.D.: Being popular in online social networks: how agentic, communal, and creativity traits relate to judgments of status and liking. J. Res. Pers. 47(5), 592–598 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Tavakolifard, M., Almeroth, K.C.: Social computing: an intersection of recommender systems, trust/reputation systems, and social networks. IEEE Netw. 26(4), 53–58 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Utz, S., Tanis, M., Vermeulen, I.E.: It is all about being popular: the effects of need for popularity on social network site use. Cyberpsy. Behav. Soc. Networking 15(1), 37–42 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wen, S., Jiang, J., Xiang, Y., Yu, S., Zhou, W.: Are the popular users always important for information dissemination in online social networks? IEEE Netw. 28(5), 64–67 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zafarani, R., Abbasi, M.A., Liu, H.: Social Media Mining: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zhang, M.: Social network analysis: History, concepts, and research, pp. 3–21. Springer (2010)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department, Telecom SudParis, Évry, France

    Monika Rakoczy, Amel Bouzeghoub & Alda Gancarski Lopes

  2. Allianstic, ESIGETEL, Groupe Efrei Paris Sud, Villejuif, France

    Katarzyna Wegrzyn-Wolska

Authors
  1. Monika Rakoczy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amel Bouzeghoub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katarzyna Wegrzyn-Wolska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alda Gancarski Lopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monika Rakoczy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland

    Christophe Debruyne

  2. University of Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France

    Hervé Panetto

  3. TU Graz, Graz, Austria

    Robert Meersman

  4. La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

    Tharam Dillon

  5. Institute of Computer Languages, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

    eva Kühn

  6. ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland

    Declan O'Sullivan

  7. Università degli Studi di Milano Crema, Crema, Italy

    Claudio Agostino Ardagna

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rakoczy, M., Bouzeghoub, A., Wegrzyn-Wolska, K., Gancarski Lopes, A. (2016). Users Views on Others – Analysis of Confused Relation-Based Terms in Social Network. In: Debruyne, C., et al. On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2016 Conferences. OTM 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10033. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48472-3_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48472-3_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-48471-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-48472-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation