How to grow more pairs: suggesting review targets for comparison-friendly review ecosystems
Pages 237 - 248
Abstract
We consider the algorithmic challenges behind a novel interface that simplifies consumer research of online reviews by surfacing relevant comparable review bundles: reviews for two or more of the items being researched, all generated in similar enough circumstances to provide for easy comparison. This can be reviews by the same reviewer, or by the same demographic category of reviewer, or reviews focusing on the same aspect of the items. But such an interface will work only if the review ecosystem often has comparable review bundles for common research tasks.
Here, we develop and evaluate practical algorithms for suggesting additional review targets to reviewers to maximize comparable pair coverage, the fraction of co-researched pairs of items that have both been reviewed by the same reviewer (or more generally are comparable in one of several ways). We show the exact problem and many subcases to be intractable, and give a greedy online, linear-time 2-approximation for a very general setting, and an offline 1.583-approximation for a narrower setting. We evaluate the algorithms on the Google+ Local reviews dataset, yielding more than 10x gain in pair coverage from six months of simulated replacement of existing reviews by suggested reviews. Even allowing for 90% of reviewers ignoring the suggestions, the pair coverage grows more than 2x in the simulation. To explore other parts of the parameter space, we also evaluate the algorithms on synthetic models.
References
[1]
Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/.
[2]
Easychair. http://www.easychair.org/.
[3]
Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/.
[4]
Google+. http://plus.google.com.
[5]
Internet movie database. http://www.imdb.com/.
[6]
Newegg. http://www.newegg.com/.
[7]
C. Avery, P. Resnick, and R. Zeckhauser. The market for evaluations. Amer. Econom. Rev., 89(3):564--584, 1999.
[8]
J. Chevalier and D. Mayzlin. The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. J. Marketing Res., 43(3):345--354, 2006.
[9]
comScore/the Kelsey group. Online consumer-generated reviews have significant impact on offline purchase behavior. Press release, November 2007. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1928.
[10]
Chrysanthos Dellarocas. The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management Science, 49(10):1401--1424, 2003.
[11]
DoubleClick. DoubleClick's Touchpoints II: The changing purchase process, mar 2004.
[12]
Angela Edmunds and Anne Morris. The problem of information overload in business organisations: a review of the literature. International Journal of Information Management, 20:17--28, 2000.
[13]
Michael L. Fredman and Robert Endre Tarjan. Fibonacci heaps and their uses in improved network optimization algorithms. J. ACM, 34(3):596--615, July 1987.
[14]
John E. Hopcroft and Richard M. Karp. An n5=2 algorithm for maximum matchings in bipartite graphs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 2(4):225--231, 1973.
[15]
John A. Horrigan. Online shopping. Pew Internet & American Life Project Report, 2008.
[16]
N. Hu, P.A. Pavlou, and J. Zhang. Can online reviews reveal a product's true quality? empirical findings and analytical modeling of online word-of-mouth communication. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Electronic commerce (EC'06), pages 324--330, 2006.
[17]
Cynthia Huffman and Barbara E. Kahn. Variety for sale: Mass customization or mass confusion? Journal of Retailing, 74(4):491--513, 1998.
[18]
Xinxin Li and Lorin M. Hitt. Self-selection and information role of online product reviews. Information Systems Research, 19(4):456--474, 2008.
[19]
Naresh K. Malhotra. Information load and consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(4):419--430, March 1982.
[20]
M. Mucha and P. Sankowski. Maximum matchings via Gaussian Elimination. In Proc. 45st IEEE FOCS, pages 248--255, 2004.
[21]
C. Oppenheim. Managers' use and handling of information. International Journal of Information Management, 17(4), 1997.
[22]
Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2(1{2):1--135, 2008. Ch. 6.
[23]
C. Piller. Everyone is a critic in cyberspace. Los Angeles Times, December 3, 1999.
[24]
A.A. Schaffer. Simple local search problems that are hard to solve. SIAM journal on Computing, 20(1):56--87, 1991.
[25]
A.J. Stanley and P.S. Clipsham. Information overload | myth or reality? In IEE Colloquium on IT Strategies for Information Overload Digest, number 1997/340, pages 1--4, 1997.
[26]
http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1928}.
Index Terms
- How to grow more pairs: suggesting review targets for comparison-friendly review ecosystems
Recommendations
TriRank: Review-aware Explainable Recommendation by Modeling Aspects
CIKM '15: Proceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge ManagementMost existing collaborative filtering techniques have focused on modeling the binary relation of users to items by extracting from user ratings. Aside from users' ratings, their affiliated reviews often provide the rationale for their ratings and ...
Kernel bounds for disjoint cycles and disjoint paths
In this paper, we show that the problems Disjoint Cycles and Disjoint Paths do not have polynomial kernels, unless NP@?coNP/poly. Thus, these problems do not allow polynomial time preprocessing that results in instances whose size is bounded by a ...
Cardinality constrained path covering problems in grid graphs
In this article we continue our study on the complexity of Path Covering Problems started in [2]. Here, taking one further step, we investigate the complexity of the problem on grids. For special classes of grids (general grids, grids with a fixed ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
May 2013
1628 pages
ISBN:9781450320351
DOI:10.1145/2488388
- General Chairs:
- Daniel Schwabe,
- Virgílio Almeida,
- Hartmut Glaser,
- Program Chairs:
- Ricardo Baeza-Yates,
- Sue Moon
Copyright © 2013 Copyright is held by the International World Wide Web Conference Committee (IW3C2).
Sponsors
- NICBR: Nucleo de Informatcao e Coordenacao do Ponto BR
- CGIBR: Comite Gestor da Internet no Brazil
In-Cooperation
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 13 May 2013
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
WWW '13
Sponsor:
- NICBR
- CGIBR
Acceptance Rates
WWW '13 Paper Acceptance Rate 125 of 831 submissions, 15%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 151Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 09 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in