The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Opinion observer: analyzing and comparing opinions on the Web
Abstract
The Web has become an excellent source for gathering consumer opinions. There are now numerous Web sites containing such opinions, e.g., customer reviews of products, forums, discussion groups, and blogs. This paper focuses on online customer reviews of products. It makes two contributions. First, it proposes a novel framework for analyzing and comparing consumer opinions of competing products. A prototype system called Opinion Observer is also implemented. The system is such that with a single glance of its visualization, the user is able to clearly see the strengths and weaknesses of each product in the minds of consumers in terms of various product features. This comparison is useful to both potential customers and product manufacturers. For a potential customer, he/she can see a visual side-by-side and feature-by-feature comparison of consumer opinions on these products, which helps him/her to decide which product to buy. For a product manufacturer, the comparison enables it to easily gather marketing intelligence and product benchmarking information. Second, a new technique based on language pattern mining is proposed to extract product features from Pros and Cons in a particular type of reviews. Such features form the basis for the above comparison. Experimental results show that the technique is highly effective and outperform existing methods significantly.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
VADER: a parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text
Hutto, C., & Gilbert, E. (2014) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550 · Cited by 6,087
Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth
Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21149 · Cited by 1,642
Movie review mining and summarization
Zhuang, L., Jing, F., & Zhu, X.-Y. (2006) · Proceedings of the 15th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management - CIKM '06 · doi:10.1145/1183614.1183625 · Cited by 894
Sentiment analysis using product review data
Fang, X., & Zhan, J. (2015) · Journal of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-015-0015-2 · Cited by 788
Ghose, A., Ipeirotis, P. G., & Li, B. (2012) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.1110.0700 · Cited by 649
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, B., Hu, M., & Cheng, J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web - WWW '05
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2005
- Pages
- 342
- OpenAlex
- W2141631351
- Cited by
- 1,597
- References
- 0
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Opinion observer: analyzing and comparing opinions on the Web. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1060745.1060797
- The paper
- Liu, B., Hu, M., & Cheng, J. (2005). Opinion observer: analyzing and comparing opinions on the Web. Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web - WWW '05. https://doi.org/10.1145/1060745.1060797
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.