Uncovering social spammers: social honeypots + machine learning
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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