Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2484028.2484072acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Exploiting user feedback to learn to rank answers in q&a forums: a case study with stack overflow

Published: 28 July 2013 Publication History

Abstract

Collaborative web sites, such as collaborative encyclopedias, blogs, and forums, are characterized by a loose edit control, which allows anyone to freely edit their content. As a consequence, the quality of this content raises much concern. To deal with this, many sites adopt manual quality control mechanisms. However, given their size and change rate, manual assessment strategies do not scale and content that is new or unpopular is seldom reviewed. This has a negative impact on the many services provided, such as ranking and recommendation. To tackle with this problem, we propose a learning to rank (L2R) approach for ranking answers in Q&A forums. In particular, we adopt an approach based on Random Forests and represent query and answer pairs using eight different groups of features. Some of these features are used in the Q&A domain for the first time. Our L2R method was trained to learn the answer rating, based on the feedback users give to answers in Q&A forums. Using the proposed method, we were able (i) to outperform a state of the art baseline with gains of up to 21% in NDCG, a metric used to evaluate rankings; we also conducted a comprehensive study of the features, showing that (ii) review and user features are the most important in the Q&A domain although text features are useful for assessing quality of new answers; and (iii) the best set of new features we proposed was able to yield the best quality rankings.

References

[1]
Automatic identification of best answers in online enquiry communities. In G. Burel, Y. He, and H. Alani, editors, 9th Extended Semantic Web Conference, volume 7295 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Crete, 2012. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[2]
E. Agichtein, C. Castillo, D. Donato, A. Gionis, and G. Mishne. Finding high-quality content in social media. In WSDM '08, pages 183--194, Palo Alto, California, USA, 2008. ACM.
[3]
A. Anderson, D. Huttenlocher, J. Kleinberg, and J. Leskovec. Discovering Value from Community Activity on Focused Question Answering Sites : A Case Study of Stack Overflow. In KDD'12, 2012.
[4]
G. Attardi, F. dell'Orletta, M. Simi, A. Chanev, and M. Ciaramita. Multilingual dependency parsing and domain adaptation using desr. In EMNLP-CoNLL, pages 1112--1118, 2007.
[5]
C. Björnsson. Lesbarkeit durch Lix. Stockholm: Pedagogiskt Centrum, 1968.
[6]
L. Breiman. Random forests. Mach. Learn., 45(1):5--32, Oct. 2001.
[7]
S. L. Cessie and J. V. Houwelingen. Ridge estimators in logistic regression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, 41(1):191--201, 1992.
[8]
M. Ciaramita and Y. Altun. Broad-coverage sense disambiguation and information extraction with a supersense sequence tagger. In EMNLP '06, EMNLP '06, pages 594--602, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2006. Association for Computational Linguistics.
[9]
M. Coleman and T. L. Liau. A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2):283--284, 1975.
[10]
D. H. Dalip, M. A. Gonçalves, M. Cristo, and P. Calado. Automatic assessment of document quality in web collaborative digital libraries. ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality, 2(13), 2011.
[11]
R. Flesch. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, pages 221--235, 1948.
[12]
Y. Freund and L. Mason. The alternating decision tree learning algorithm. In ICML'99, 1999.
[13]
J. H. Friedman. Stochastic gradient boosting. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 38(4):367--378, Feb. 2002.
[14]
R. Gunning. The Technique of Clear Writing. McGraw-Hill International Book Co, 1952.
[15]
K. J\"arvelin and J. Kek\"al\"ainen. IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. In SIGIR '00, pages 41--48, Athens, Greece, 2000.
[16]
J. Jeon, W. B. Croft, J. H. Lee, and S. Park. A framework to predict the quality of answers with non-textual features. In SIGIR '06, pages 228--235, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2006. ACM.
[17]
J. M. Kleinberg. Hubs, authorities, and communities. ACM Comput. Surv., 31(4es), Dec. 1999.
[18]
S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler. On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22(1):79--86, 1951.
[19]
B. Li, T. Jin, M. R. Lyu, I. King, B. Mak, T. Chinese, and H. Kong. Analyzing and Predicting Question Quality in Community Question Answering Services Categories and Subject Descriptors. pages 775--782, 2012.
[20]
G. H. McLaughlin. Smog grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, pages 639--646, 1969.
[21]
T. M. Mitchell. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 1997.
[22]
A. Mohan, Z. Chen, and K. Weinberger. Web-search ranking with initialized gradient boosted regression trees. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings: Proceedings of the Yahoo! Learning to Rank Challenge, 14:77--89, June 2011.
[23]
L. Page, S. Brin, R. Motwani, and T. Winograd. The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web. Technical report, Stanford Digital Library Technologies Project, 1998.
[24]
L. Rassbach, T. Pincock, and B. Mingus. Exploring the feasibility of automatically rating online article quality. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/wikimania2007/d/d3/RassbachPincoc%kMingus07.pdf, 2007.
[25]
S. Ressler. Perspectives on electronic publishing: standards, solutions, and more. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1993.
[26]
S. E. Robertson and S. Walker. Some simple effective approximations to the 2-poisson model for probabilistic weighted retrieval. In SIGIR '94, SIGIR '94, pages 232--241, New York, NY, USA, 1994. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.
[27]
T. Sakai, D. Ishikawa, N. Kando, Y. Seki, K. Kuriyama, and C.-Y. Lin. Using graded-relevance metrics for evaluating community QA answer selection. In WSDM '11, page 187, New York, New York, USA, Feb. 2011. ACM Press.
[28]
C. Shah and J. Pomerantz. Evaluating and predicting answer quality in community QA. In SIGIR'10, number March 2008, 2010.
[29]
E. A. Smith and R. J. Senter. Automated readability index. Aerospace Medical Division, 1967.
[30]
B. Stvilia, M. B. Twidale, L. C. Smith, and L. Gasser. Assessing information quality of a community-based encyclopedia. In ICIQ'05, pages 442--454, 2005.
[31]
M. Surdeanu, M. Ciaramita, and H. Zaragoza. Learning to Rank Answers on Large Online QA Collections. ACL '08, 2008.
[32]
M. A. Suryanto and R. H. L. Chiang. Quality-Aware Collaborative Question Answering : Methods and Evaluation. In WSDM '09, pages 142--151, 2009.
[33]
F. Wilcoxon. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics, pages 80--83, 1945.
[34]
J. Zhang, M. S. Ackerman, and L. Adamic. Expertise networks in online communities. In WWW '07, New York, New York, USA, 2007. ACM Press.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Users’ satisfaction based ranking for Yahoo AnswersMultimedia Tools and Applications10.1007/s11042-024-18433-383:28(71265-71284)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2024
  • (2023)Characterizing architecture related posts and their usefulness in Stack OverflowJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2023.111608198(111608)Online publication date: Apr-2023
  • (2023)Analyzing Techniques for Duplicate Question Detection on Q&A Websites for Game DevelopersEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-022-10256-w28:1Online publication date: 1-Jan-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Exploiting user feedback to learn to rank answers in q&a forums: a case study with stack overflow

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGIR '13: Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
      July 2013
      1188 pages
      ISBN:9781450320344
      DOI:10.1145/2484028
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 28 July 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. answer quality
      2. content quality assessment
      3. learning to rank
      4. q&a forums

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Conference

      SIGIR '13
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGIR '13 Paper Acceptance Rate 73 of 366 submissions, 20%;
      Overall Acceptance Rate 792 of 3,983 submissions, 20%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)46
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12
      Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)Users’ satisfaction based ranking for Yahoo AnswersMultimedia Tools and Applications10.1007/s11042-024-18433-383:28(71265-71284)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2024
      • (2023)Characterizing architecture related posts and their usefulness in Stack OverflowJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2023.111608198(111608)Online publication date: Apr-2023
      • (2023)Analyzing Techniques for Duplicate Question Detection on Q&A Websites for Game DevelopersEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-022-10256-w28:1Online publication date: 1-Jan-2023
      • (2023)An Interactive Decision Tree-Based Evolutionary Multi-objective AlgorithmEvolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization10.1007/978-3-031-27250-9_44(620-634)Online publication date: 9-Mar-2023
      • (2022)Analysis of community question‐answering issues via machine learning and deep learningCAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology10.1049/cit2.120818:1(95-117)Online publication date: 4-May-2022
      • (2022)Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious: Why Using the “Right” Readability Formula in Children’s Web Search MattersAdvances in Information Retrieval10.1007/978-3-030-99736-6_1(3-18)Online publication date: 5-Apr-2022
      • (2021)A Learn-to-Rank Approach for Predicting Road Cycling Race OutcomesFrontiers in Sports and Active Living10.3389/fspor.2021.7141073Online publication date: 6-Oct-2021
      • (2021)Are Comments on Stack Overflow Well Organized for Easy Retrieval by Developers?ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/343427930:2(1-31)Online publication date: 10-Feb-2021
      • (2021)Promotion of Answer Value Measurement With Domain Effects in Community Question Answering SystemsIEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems10.1109/TSMC.2019.291767351:5(3068-3079)Online publication date: May-2021
      • (2021)Reading Answers on Stack Overflow: Not Enough!IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2019.295431947:11(2520-2533)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2021
      • Show More Cited By

      View Options

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media