Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,400

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimating the Helpfulness and Economic Impact of Product Reviews: Mining Text and Reviewer Characteristics

Open access
Ghose, A., Ipeirotis, P. G.·2011·IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

Abstract

With the rapid growth of the Internet, the ability of users to create and publish content has created active electronic communities that provide a wealth of product information. However, the high volume of reviews that are typically published for a single product makes harder for individuals as well as manufacturers to locate the best reviews and understand the true underlying quality of a product. In this paper, we reexamine the impact of reviews on economic outcomes like product sales and see how different factors affect social outcomes such as their perceived usefulness. Our approach explores multiple aspects of review text, such as subjectivity levels, various measures of readability and extent of spelling errors to identify important text-based features. In addition, we also examine multiple reviewer-level features such as average usefulness of past reviews and the self-disclosed identity measures of reviewers that are displayed next to a review. Our econometric analysis reveals that the extent of subjectivity, informativeness, readability, and linguistic correctness in reviews matters in influencing sales and perceived usefulness. Reviews that have a mixture of objective, and highly subjective sentences are negatively associated with product sales, compared to reviews that tend to include only subjective or only objective information. However, such reviews are rated more informative (or helpful) by other users. By using Random Forest-based classifiers, we show that we can accurately predict the impact of reviews on sales and their perceived usefulness. We examine the relative importance of the three broad feature categories: “reviewer-related” features, “review subjectivity” features, and “review readability” features, and find that using any of the three feature sets results in a statistically equivalent performance as in the case of using all available features. This paper is the first study that integrates econometric, text mining, and predictive modeling techniques toward a more complete analysis of the information captured by user-generated online reviews in order to estimate their helpfulness and economic impact.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tkde.2010.188

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. Hu, Can Online Reviews Reveal a Product’s True Quality? Empirical Findings and Analytical Modeling of Online Word-of-Mouth Communication, 324
  2. Dellarocas, Exploring the Value of Online Product Ratings in Revenue Forecasting: The Case of Motion Pictures
  3. 10.1111/j.0022-1821.2005.00244.x · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1287/isre.1080.0193 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1509/jmkg.70.3.74 · doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.3.74 · Paper page
  6. 10.1016/j.jretai.2008.04.005 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Hass, Effects of Source Characteristics on Cognitive Responses and Persuasion, 1
  8. 10.1037//0022-3514.39.5.752 · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.39.5.752 · Paper page
  9. Chaiken, The Heuristic Model of Persuasion, 5, 3
  10. 10.1086/209118 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Spears, Social Influence and the Influence of the ‘Social’ in Computer-Mediated Communication, 30
  12. 10.1287/orsc.10.6.791 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1207/s1532785xmep0103_4 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.004 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1287/isre.1070.0113 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Ghose, Opinion Mining Using Econometrics: A Case Study on Reputation Systems, 416
  17. 10.1145/1281192.1281202 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Ghose, Designing Ranking Systems for Consumer Reviews: The Impact of Review Subjectivity on Product Sales and Review Quality
  19. 10.1145/1282100.1282158 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Ghose, Estimating the Socio-Economic Impact of Product Reviews: Mining Text and Reviewer Characteristics
  21. 10.1145/1183614.1183626 · DOI
  22. 10.3115/1610075.1610135 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Liu, Low-Quality Product Review Detection in Opinion Summarization, 334
  24. 10.1145/1518701.1518848 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1109/ICDM.2008.94 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.3115/1557769.1557806 · DOI
  27. Weimer, Predicting the Perceived Quality of Web Forum Posts
  28. 10.1145/1148170.1148212 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1007/978-3-540-68636-1_54 · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68636-1_54
  30. Hao, Why Some Online Product Reviews Have No Usefulness Rating?
  31. 10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13945 · DOI
  32. 10.1214/088342306000000187 · DOI
  33. 10.3115/976909.979640 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1145/1014052.1014073 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.3115/1220355.1220555 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.3115/1073083.1073153 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Pang, Thumbs Up? Sentiment Classification Using Machine Learning Techniques
  38. 10.1145/775152.775226 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.3115/1218955.1218990 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Cui, Comparative Experiments on Sentiment Classification for Online Product Reviews
  41. 10.3115/1219840.1219855 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1111/j.1467-8640.2006.00275.x · DOI
  43. Nigam, Towards a Robust Metric of Opinion, 598
  44. Snyder, Multiple Aspect Ranking Using the Good Grief Algorithm
  45. White, 2003, The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)
  46. DuBay, 2004, The Principles of Readability
  47. Chevalier, Measuring Prices and Price Competition Online: Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com, 1, 203
  48. Wooldridge, 2001, Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data
  49. Burges, A Tutorial on Support Vector Machines for Pattern Recognition, 2, 121
  50. 10.29172/7c2a6982-6d72-4cd8-bba6-2fccb06a7011 · DOI · Paper page
  51. 10.1145/1143844.1143865 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1145/1390156.1390169 · DOI · Paper page
  53. 10.1145/1526709.1526729 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Shen, Essays on Online Reviews: The Strategic Behaviors of Online Reviewers to Compete for Attention, and the Temporal Pattern of Online Reviews
  55. 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.09.035 · DOI
  56. 10.1109/mis.2011.22 · DOI
  57. Yahia, Reviewing the Reviewers: Characterizing Biases and Competencies Using Socially Meaningful Attributes

Cited by

See all 1,400

Metadata

Authors
Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. G.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
Published
2011-10
Volume
23
Issue
10
Pages
1498-1512
ISSN
1041-4347 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2098173428
Cited by
1,400
References
3
FWCI
127.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Estimating the Helpfulness and Economic Impact of Product Reviews: Mining Text and Reviewer Characteristics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tkde.2010.188
The paper
Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2011). Estimating the Helpfulness and Economic Impact of Product Reviews: Mining Text and Reviewer Characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tkde.2010.188

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.