Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 557

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 access
Mukherjee, Arjun, Venkataraman, Vivek, Liu, Bing, Glance, Natalie·2021·Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14389

Cites

33 of 33 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 33 references

Cited by

See all 557

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.