Cited by 604Spam and Phishing DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Collective Opinion Spam Detection: Bridging Review Networks and Metadata

Rayana, Shebuti, Akoglu, Leman·2015·Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

Abstract

Online reviews capture the testimonials of "real" people and help shape the decisions of other consumers. Due to the financial gains associated with positive reviews, however, opinion spam has become a widespread problem, with often paid spam reviewers writing fake reviews to unjustly promote or demote certain products or businesses. Existing approaches to opinion spam have successfully but separately utilized linguistic clues of deception, behavioral footprints, or relational ties between agents in a review system.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2783258.2783370

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Fraudulent behaviors, including fake reviews and sockpuppet accounts, are prevalent on popular online peer-opinion sites and negatively affect users.

    “Popular online services that provide millions of users with access to products, news, social relationships and peer-opinions, are besieged by fraudulent behaviors, that skew public opinion and bias product reputation and popularity [25,35,45,54,75,80,91].”

    From The Art and Craft of Fraudulent App Promotion in Google Play (2019) · cites this paper as [45]

  • Because multiple fraud workers usually target one subject, binary classification of fraud is insufficient to understand and model fraud.

    “The insight that multiple fraud workers usually target a single subject suggests that a binary classification of fraud, e.g., fake vs. honest reviews, fraudulent vs. honest accounts [17,26,27,31,32,44,47,80], is insufficient to understand and model fraud.”

    From Fraud De-Anonymization for Fun and Profit (2018) · cites this paper as [47]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rayana, S., & Akoglu, L.
Affiliations
Stony Brook University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
Publisher
ACM
Published
2015-08-10
Pages
985-994
OpenAlex
W2064058256
Cited by
604
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 9
FWCI
26.36
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1452425,1017181)
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-14-1-0029)
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, online reviews, fake reviews, deception detection, relational ties, collective opinion

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