The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Yelp Fake Review Filter Might Be Doing?
Open accessAbstract
Online reviews have become a valuable resource for decision making. However, its usefulness brings forth a curse ‒ deceptive opinion spam. In recent years, fake review detection has attracted significant attention. However, most review sites still do not publicly filter fake reviews. Yelp is an exception which has been filtering reviews over the past few years. However, Yelp’s algorithm is trade secret. In this work, we attempt to find out what Yelp might be doing by analyzing its filtered reviews. The results will be useful to other review hosting sites in their filtering effort. There are two main approaches to filtering: supervised and unsupervised learning. In terms of features used, there are also roughly two types: linguistic features and behavioral features. In this work, we will take a supervised approach as we can make use of Yelp’s filtered reviews for training. Existing approaches based on supervised learning are all based on pseudo fake reviews rather than fake reviews filtered by a commercial Web site. Recently, supervised learning using linguistic n-gram features has been shown to perform extremely well (attaining around 90% accuracy) in detecting crowdsourced fake reviews generated using Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). We put these existing research methods to the test and evaluate performance on the real-life Yelp data. To our surprise, the behavioral features perform very well, but the linguistic features are not as effective. To investigate, a novel information theoretic analysis is proposed to uncover the precise psycholinguistic difference between AMT reviews and Yelp reviews (crowdsourced vs. commercial fake reviews). We find something quite interesting. This analysis and experimental results allow us to postulate that Yelp’s filtering is reasonable and its filtering algorithm seems to be correlated with abnormal spamming behaviors.
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
Cites
Editorial: special issue on learning from imbalanced data sets
Chawla, N. V., Japkowicz, N., & Kotcz, A. (2004) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/1007730.1007733 · Cited by 2,063
The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015
Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015) · University of Texas at Austin · doi:10.15781/t25p41 · Cited by 1,674
Making Large-Scale Support Vector Machine Learning Practical
Joachims, T. (1998) · Advances in Kernel Methods · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1130.003.0015 · Cited by 1,613
Jindal, N., & Liu, B. (2008) · Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining - WSDM '08 · doi:10.1145/1341531.1341560 · Cited by 1,542
Self-citationLying Words: Predicting Deception from Linguistic Styles
Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167203029005010 · Cited by 1,439
Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination
Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2011) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1107.4557 · Cited by 1,008
C4.5, Class Imbalance, and Cost Sensitivity: Why Under-Sampling beats Over-Sampling
Drummond, C., & Holte, R. C. (2003) · Cited by 799
Spotting fake reviewer groups in consumer reviews
Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., & Glance, N. (2012) · Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2187836.2187863 · Cited by 773
Self-citationDetecting product review spammers using rating behaviors
Lim, E.-P., Nguyen, V.-A., Jindal, N., Liu, B., & Lauw, H. W. (2010) · Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management · doi:10.1145/1871437.1871557 · Cited by 715
Self-citationOn Lying and Being Lied To: A Linguistic Analysis of Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication
Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. (2007) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/01638530701739181 · Cited by 522
Cited by
A survey on sentiment analysis methods, applications, and challenges
Wankhade, M., Rao, A. C. S., & Kulkarni, C. (2022) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-022-10144-1 · Cited by 1,528
Algorithmic Accountability: Journalistic investigation of computational power structures
Diakopoulos, N. (2015) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.976411 · Cited by 733
A survey on sentiment analysis challenges
Hussein, D. M. E.-D. M. (2018) · Journal of King Saud University - Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jksues.2016.04.002 · Cited by 659
Collective Opinion Spam Detection: Bridging Review Networks and Metadata
Rayana, S., & Akoglu, L. (2015) · Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2783258.2783370 · Cited by 604
Survey of review spam detection using machine learning techniques
Crawford, M., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Prusa, J. D., Richter, A. N., & Al Najada, H. (2015) · Journal of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-015-0029-9 · Cited by 502
Metadata
- Authors
- Mukherjee, A., Venkataraman, V., Liu, B., & Glance, N.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
- Published
- 2021-08-03
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 409-418
- ISSN
- 2162-3449 (ISSN-L)
- 2334-0770
- OpenAlex
- W893486657
- Cited by
- 557
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 43.52
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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: What Yelp Fake Review Filter Might Be Doing? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14389
- The paper
- Mukherjee, A., Venkataraman, V., Liu, B., & Glance, N. (2021). What Yelp Fake Review Filter Might Be Doing? Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14389
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.