PreprintCited by 7Recommender Systems and TechniquesInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorEthics and Social Impacts of AI

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

What We Know About Using Non-Engagement Signals in Content Ranking

Open access
Cunningham, Tom, Pandey, Sana, Sigerson, Leif, Stray, Jonathan, Allen, Jeff, Barrilleaux, Bonnie, Iyer, Ravi, Milli, Smitha, Kothari, Mohit, Rezaei, Behnam·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Many online platforms predominantly rank items by predicted user engagement. We believe that there is much unrealized potential in including non-engagement signals, which can improve outcomes both for platforms and for society as a whole. Based on a daylong workshop with experts from industry and academia, we formulate a series of propositions and document each as best we can from public evidence, including quantitative results where possible. There is strong evidence that ranking by predicted engagement is effective in increasing user retention. However retention can be further increased by incorporating other signals, including item "quality" proxies and asking users what they want to see with "item-level" surveys. There is also evidence that "diverse engagement" is an effective quality signal. Ranking changes can alter the prevalence of self-reported experiences of various kinds (e.g. harassment) but seldom have large enough effects on attitude measures like user satisfaction, well-being, polarization etc. to be measured in typical experiments. User controls over ranking often have low usage rates, but when used they do correlate well with quality and item-level surveys. There was no strong evidence on the impact of transparency/explainability on retention. There is reason to believe that generative AI could be used to create better quality signals and enable new kinds of user controls.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.06831

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.

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cunningham, T., Pandey, S., Sigerson, L., Stray, J., Allen, J., Barrilleaux, B., Iyer, R., Milli, S., Kothari, M., & Rezaei, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391800446
Cited by
7
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
content ranking, user engagement prediction, user retention, online harassment, user satisfaction, polarization, transparency and explainability, generative AI, digital platforms

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