Cited by 619Spam and Phishing DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Uncovering social spammers: social honeypots + machine learning

Lee, Kyumin, Caverlee, James, Webb, Steve·2010·Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval

Abstract

Web-based social systems enable new community-based opportunities for participants to engage, share, and interact. This community value and related services like search and advertising are threatened by spammers, content polluters, and malware disseminators. In an effort to preserve community value and ensure longterm success, we propose and evaluate a honeypot-based approach for uncovering social spammers in online social systems. Two of the key components of the proposed approach are: (1) The deployment of social honeypots for harvesting deceptive spam profiles from social networking communities; and (2) Statistical analysis of the properties of these spam profiles for creating spam classifiers to actively filter out existing and new spammers. We describe the conceptual framework and design considerations of the proposed approach, and we present concrete observations from the deployment of social honeypots in MySpace and Twitter. We find that the deployed social honeypots identify social spammers with low false positive rates and that the harvested spam data contains signals that are strongly correlated with observable profile features (e.g., content, friend information, posting patterns, etc.). Based on these profile features, we develop machine learning based classifiers for identifying previously unknown spammers with high precision and a low rate of false positives.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1835449.1835522

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Age of the account: the more an account is aged, the more it could be considered a good one.

    “1. age of the account (this feature also appears in [28]): the more an account is aged, the more it could be considered a good one;”

    From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [28]

  • Unlike prior honeypot studies, the paper leverages timeline-based features for detection of fake accounts.

    “Unlike [30, 44], we leverage timeline-based features for the detection of fake accounts.”

    From Measuring, Characterizing, and Detecting Facebook Like Farms (2017) · cites this paper as [30]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 619

Authors
Lee, K., Caverlee, J., & Webb, S.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
Publisher
ACM
Published
2010-07-19
Pages
435-442
OpenAlex
W1996802155
Cited by
619
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 60 · 2015: 65 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 39
FWCI
22.92
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) (publishedVersion)
Funders
Texas A and M University
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
honeypots, social networking sites, spam detection, spammer profiling, spammer detection, spam filtering, MySpace, Twitter, profile features, machine learning classifiers

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