Cited by 84Spam and Phishing DetectionComplex Network Analysis TechniquesMisinformation and Its Impacts

Discovering Opinion Spammer Groups by Network Footprints

Ye, Junting, Akoglu, Leman·2015·Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on Conference on Online Social Networks

Abstract

Online reviews are an important source for consumers to evaluate products/services on the Internet (e.g. Amazon, Yelp, etc.). However, more and more fraudulent reviewers write fake reviews to mislead users. To maximize their impact and share effort, many spam attacks are organized as campaigns, by a group of spammers. In this paper, we propose a new two-step method to discover spammer groups and their targeted products. First, we introduce NFS (Network Footprint Score), a new measure that quantifies the likelihood of products being spam campaign targets. Second, we carefully devise GroupStrainer to cluster spammers on a 2-hop subgraph induced by top ranking products. Our approach has four key advantages: (i) unsupervised detection; both steps require no labeled data, (ii) adversarial robustness; we quantify statistical distortions in the review network, of which spammers have only a partial view, and avoid any side information that spammers can easily evade, (iii) sensemaking; the output facilitates the exploration of the nested hierarchy (i.e., organization) among the spammers, and finally (iv) scalability; both steps have complexity linear in network size, moreover, GroupStrainer operates on a carefully induced subnetwork. We demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of our approach on both synthetic and real-world datasets from two different domains with millions of products and reviewers. Moreover, we discover interesting strategies that spammers employ through case studies of our detected groups.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2817946.2820606

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?

  • The computed average rating of an app is imperfect because the study lacks access to ratings posted without reviews and may not correctly model Google's algorithm.

    “Finally, our computed average rating of an app is imperfect, since (1) we do not have access to ratings posted without reviews, and (2) may not correctly model Google's algorithm, that e.g., may assign weights to ratings based on perceived usefulness, fraudulence or recency [72].”

    From The Art and Craft of Fraudulent App Promotion in Google Play (2019) · cites this paper as [72]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 30 · Cited by 84

Authors
Ye, J., & Akoglu, L.
Affiliations
Stony Brook University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on Conference on Online Social Networks
Publisher
ACM
Published
2015-11-02
Pages
97-97
OpenAlex
W1975223096
Cited by
84
References
30
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Conference on Online Social Networks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
opinion spam, fake reviews, online reviews, two-stage clustering, adversarial robustness, unsupervised detection

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