Cited by 1,542Spam and Phishing DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Opinion spam and analysis

Jindal, Nitin, Liu, Bing·2008·Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining - WSDM '08

Abstract

Evaluative texts on the Web have become a valuable source of opinions on products, services, events, individuals, etc. Recently, many researchers have studied such opinion sources as product reviews, forum posts, and blogs. However, existing research has been focused on classification and summarization of opinions using natural language processing and data mining techniques. An important issue that has been neglected so far is opinion spam or trustworthiness of online opinions. In this paper, we study this issue in the context of product reviews, which are opinion rich and are widely used by consumers and product manufacturers. In the past two years, several startup companies also appeared which aggregate opinions from product reviews. It is thus high time to study spam in reviews. To the best of our knowledge, there is still no published study on this topic, although Web spam and email spam have been investigated extensively. We will see that opinion spam is quite different from Web spam and email spam, and thus requires different detection techniques. Based on the analysis of 5.8 million reviews and 2.14 million reviewers from amazon.com, we show that opinion spam in reviews is widespread. This paper analyzes such spam activities and presents some novel techniques to detect them

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1341531.1341560

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Disinformation can take forms beyond hoaxes or "fake news", including manipulation of social systems such as Google bombs or review spam.

    “Disinformation can take forms beyond the production of hoaxes or “fake news” (Lazer et al., 2018); and include other types of manipulation of social systems, such as Google bombs to associate a keyword to a URL by repeatedly searching for the keyword and clicking on the URL, or review spam (Jindal and Liu, 2008) to manipulate the reputation of a product/service.”

    From Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019) · cites this paper as Jindal and Liu, 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jindal, N., & Liu, B.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining - WSDM '08
Publisher
ACM Press
Published
2008
Pages
219
OpenAlex
W2047756776
Cited by
1,542
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 78 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 112 · 2020: 124 · 2019: 118 · 2018: 128 · 2017: 137 · 2016: 99 · 2015: 137 · 2014: 103 · 2013: 77 · 2012: 77
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
opinion spam, spam detection, product reviews, online reviews, review aggregation, Amazon reviews

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