Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 451

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Sound of Silence in Online Feedback: Estimating Trading Risks in the Presence of Reporting Bias

Open access
Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, Wood, Charles A.·2008·Management Science

Abstract

Most online feedback mechanisms rely on voluntary reporting of privately observed outcomes. This introduces the potential for reporting bias, a situation where traders exhibit different propensities to report different outcome types to the system. Unless properly accounted for, reporting bias may severely distort the distribution of public feedback relative to the underlying distribution of private transaction outcomes and, thus, hamper the reliability of feedback mechanisms. This study offers a method that allows users of feedback mechanisms where both partners of a bilateral exchange are allowed to report their satisfaction to “see through” the distortions introduced by reporting bias and derive unbiased estimates of the underlying distribution of privately observed outcomes. A key aspect of our method lies in extracting information from the number of transactions where one or both trading partners choose to remain silent. We apply our method to a large data set of eBay feedback. Our results support the widespread belief that eBay traders are more likely to post feedback when satisfied than when dissatisfied and are consistent with the presence of positive and negative reciprocation among eBay traders. Most importantly, our analysis derives unbiased estimates of the risks that are associated with trading on eBay that, we believe, are more realistic than those suggested by a naïve interpretation of the unusually high (>99%) levels of positive feedback currently found on that system.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mnsc.1070.0747

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 10.1177/109467059800100102 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1257/0022051041409075 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1002/9781118619179 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.2307/1914036 · DOI
  5. 10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1407.17308 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1287/isre.1050.0054 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1257/jep.14.3.159 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Greene W. H., 2002, Econometric Analysis
  9. Hu N., 2006, Proc. Seventh ACM Conf. on Electronic Commerce (EC06), 324
  10. 10.1007/s10799-006-9181-4 · DOI
  11. Kesmodel D., 2005, Wall Street Journal
  12. Khopkar T., 2005, Proc. Sixth ACM Conf. on Electronic Commerce (EC05), 223
  13. 10.1016/S0278-0984(02)11030-3 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.2307/1913267 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1093/biomet/67.3.515 · DOI
  16. 10.1214/aoms/1177698805 · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177698805
  17. Tesser A., 1975, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 193

Cited by

See all 451

Metadata

Authors
Dellarocas, C., & Wood, C. A.
Venue
Management Science
Published
2008-03
Volume
54
Issue
3
Pages
460-476
ISSN
  • 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5501
OpenAlex
W2129940040
Cited by
451
References
2
FWCI
23.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: The Sound of Silence in Online Feedback: Estimating Trading Risks in the Presence of Reporting Bias. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0747
The paper
Dellarocas, C., & Wood, C. A. (2008). The Sound of Silence in Online Feedback: Estimating Trading Risks in the Presence of Reporting Bias. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0747

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.