The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Immunizing online reputation reporting systems against unfair ratings and discriminatory behavior
Open accessAbstract
Reputation reporting systems have emerged as an important risk management mechanism in online trading communities.However, the predictive value of these systems can be compromised in situations where conspiring buyers intentionally give unfair ratings to sellers or, where sellers discriminate on the quality of service they provide to different buyers.This paper proposes and evaluates a set of mechanisms, which eliminate, or significantly reduce the negative effects of such fraudulent behavior.The proposed mechanisms can be easily integrated into existing online reputation systems in order to safeguard their reliability in the presence of potentially deceitful buyers and sellers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision
Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.019 · Cited by 3,330
Designing reputation mechanisms
Dellarocas, C., Dini, F., & Spagnolo, G. (2006) · Handbook of Procurement · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511492556.019 · Cited by 44
Self-citationMasterov, D. V., Mayer, U. F., & Tadelis, S. (2015) · Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation · doi:10.1145/2764468.2764499 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Dellarocas, C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2nd ACM conference on Electronic commerce
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2000-10-17
- Pages
- 150-157
- OpenAlex
- W2158701542
- Cited by
- 657
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 55.30
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Immunizing online reputation reporting systems against unfair ratings and discriminatory behavior. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/352871.352889
- The paper
- Dellarocas, C. (2000). Immunizing online reputation reporting systems against unfair ratings and discriminatory behavior. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM conference on Electronic commerce. https://doi.org/10.1145/352871.352889
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
