Social media systems rely on user feedback and rating mechanisms for personalization, ranking, and content filtering. However, when users evaluate content contributed by fellow users (e.g., by liking a post or voting on a comment), these evaluations create complex social feedback effects. This paper investigates how ratings on a piece of content affect its author's future behavior. By studying four large comment-based news communities, we find that negative feedback leads to significant behavioral changes that are detrimental to the community. Not only do authors of negatively-evaluated content contribute more, but also their future posts are of lower quality, and are perceived by the community as such. Moreover, these authors are more likely to subsequently evaluate their fellow users negatively, percolating these effects through the community. In contrast, positive feedback does not carry similar effects, and neither encourages rewarded authors to write more, nor improves the quality of their posts. Interestingly, the authors that receive no feedback are most likely to leave a community. Furthermore, a structural analysis of the voter network reveals that evaluations polarize the community the most when positive and negative votes are equally split.
Our findings here reveal that negative feedback does not lead to a decrease of undesired user behavior, but rather attenuates it. Given the difficulty of moderating undesired user behavior, it is worth pointing out that anti-social behavior in social media systems is a growing concern @cite_9 , as emphasized by work on review spamming @cite_7 @cite_11 @cite_21 , trolling @cite_35 , social deviance @cite_6 and online harassment @cite_24 .
@cite_35 @cite_7 @cite_9 @cite_21 @cite_6 @cite_24 @cite_11
2138969065 2155929351 2962764888 2952512732 2588098783 2063248556 2145162117 2949557692 1988560072 2130313487 2588334501 2364057241 2025496001 2117376174 2611552941 2096131645 1993722065 2560267416 2135565673 2597730742
User contributions in the form of posts, comments, and votes are essential to the success of online communities. However, allowing user participation also invites undesirable behavior such as trolling. In this paper, we characterize antisocial behavior in three large online discussion communities by analyzing users who were banned from these communities. We find that such users tend to concentrate their efforts in a small number of threads, are more likely to post irrelevantly, and are more successful at garnering responses from other users. Studying the evolution of these users from the moment they join a community up to when they get banned, we find that not only do they write worse than other users over time, but they also become increasingly less tolerated by the community. Further, we discover that antisocial behavior is exacerbated when community feedback is overly harsh. Our analysis also reveals distinct groups of users with different levels of antisocial behavior that can change over time. We use these insights to identify antisocial users early on, a task of high practical importance to community maintainers. Social media systems rely on user feedback and rating mechanisms for personalization, ranking, and content filtering. However, when users evaluate content contributed by fellow users (e.g., by liking a post or voting on a comment), these evaluations create complex social feedback effects. This paper investigates how ratings on a piece of content affect its author's future behavior. By studying four large comment-based news communities, we find that negative feedback leads to significant behavioral changes that are detrimental to the community. Not only do authors of negatively-evaluated content contribute more, but also their future posts are of lower quality, and are perceived by the community as such. Moreover, these authors are more likely to subsequently evaluate their fellow users negatively, percolating these effects through the community. In contrast, positive feedback does not carry similar effects, and neither encourages rewarded authors to write more, nor improves the quality of their posts. Interestingly, the authors that receive no feedback are most likely to leave a community. Furthermore, a structural analysis of the voter network reveals that evaluations polarize the community the most when positive and negative votes are equally split. Social media systems rely on user feedback and rating mechanisms for personalization, ranking, and content filtering. However, when users evaluate content contributed by fellow users (e.g., by liking a post or voting on a comment), these evaluations create complex social feedback effects. This paper investigates how ratings on a piece of content affect its author's future behavior. By studying four large comment-based news communities, we find that negative feedback leads to significant behavioral changes that are detrimental to the community. Not only do authors of negatively-evaluated content contribute more, but also their future posts are of lower quality, and are perceived by the community as such. Moreover, these authors are more likely to subsequently evaluate their fellow users negatively, percolating these effects through the community. In contrast, positive feedback does not carry similar effects, and neither encourages rewarded authors to write more, nor improves the quality of their posts. Interestingly, the authors that receive no feedback are most likely to leave a community. Furthermore, a structural analysis of the voter network reveals that evaluations polarize the community the most when positive and negative votes are equally split. At a time when information seekers first turn to digital sources for news and opinion, it is critical that we understand the role that social media plays in human behavior. This is especially true when information consumers also act as information producers and editors by their online activity. In order to better understand the effects that editorial ratings have on online human behavior, we report the results of a large-scale in-vivo experiment in social media. We find that small, random rating manipulations on social media submissions created significant changes in downstream ratings resulting in significantly different final outcomes. Positive treatment resulted in a positive effect that increased the final rating by 11.02 on average. Compared to the control group, positive treatment also increased the probability of reaching a high rating (>=2000) by 24.6 . Contrary to the results of related work we also find that negative treatment resulted in a negative effect that decreased the final rating by 5.15 on average. Online communities have the potential to be supportive, cruel, or anywhere in between. The development of positive norms for interaction can help users build bonds, grow, and learn. Using millions of messages sent in Twitch chatrooms, we explore the effectiveness of methods for encouraging and discouraging specific behaviors, including taking advantage of imitation effects through setting positive examples and using moderation tools to discourage antisocial behaviors. Consistent with aspects of imitation theory and deterrence theory, users imitated examples of behavior that they saw, and more so for behaviors from high status users. Proactive moderation tools, such as chat modes which restricted the ability to post certain content, proved effective at discouraging spam behaviors, while reactive bans were able to discourage a wider variety of behaviors. This work considers the intersection of tools, authority, and types of behaviors, offering a new frame through which to consider the development of moderation strategies. Our society is increasingly relying on the digitized, aggregated opinions of others to make decisions. We therefore designed and analyzed a large-scale randomized experiment on a social news aggregation Web site to investigate whether knowledge of such aggregates distorts decision-making. Prior ratings created significant bias in individual rating behavior, and positive and negative social influences created asymmetric herding effects. Whereas negative social influence inspired users to correct manipulated ratings, positive social influence increased the likelihood of positive ratings by 32 and created accumulating positive herding that increased final ratings by 25 on average. This positive herding was topic-dependent and affected by whether individuals were viewing the opinions of friends or enemies. A mixture of changing opinion and greater turnout under both manipulations together with a natural tendency to up-vote on the site combined to create the herding effects. Such findings will help interpret collective judgment accurately and avoid social influence bias in collective intelligence in the future. As user-generated Web content increases, the amount of inappropriate and or objectionable content also grows. Several scholarly communities are addressing how to detect and manage such content: research in computer vision focuses on detection of inappropriate images, natural language processing technology has advanced to recognize insults. However, profanity detection systems remain flawed. Current list-based profanity detection systems have two limitations. First, they are easy to circumvent and easily become stale - that is, they cannot adapt to misspellings, abbreviations, and the fast pace of profane slang evolution. Secondly, they offer a one-size fits all solution; they typically do not accommodate domain, community and context specific needs. However, social settings have their own normative behaviors - what is deemed acceptable in one community may not be in another. In this paper, through analysis of comments from a social news site, we provide evidence that current systems are performing poorly and evaluate the cases on which they fail. We then address community differences regarding creation tolerance of profanity and suggest a shift to more contextually nuanced profanity detection systems. Cyberbullying has emerged as an important and growing social problem, wherein people use online social networks and mobile phones to bully victims with offensive text, images, audio and video on a 247 basis. This paper studies negative user behavior in the Ask.fm social network, a popular new site that has led to many cases of cyberbullying, some leading to suicidal behavior.We examine the occurrence of negative words in Ask.fms question+answer profiles along with the social network of likes of questions+answers. We also examine properties of users with cutting behavior in this social network. A large fraction of user-generated content on the Web, such as posts or comments on popular online forums, consists of abuse or spam. Due to the volume of contributions on popular sites, a few trusted moderators cannot identify all such abusive content, so viewer ratings of contributions must be used for moderation. But not all viewers who rate content are trustworthy and accurate. What is a principled approach to assigning trust and aggregating user ratings, in order to accurately identify abusive content? In this paper, we introduce a framework to address the problem of moderating online content using crowdsourced ratings. Our framework encompasses users who are untrustworthy or inaccurate to an unknown extent --- that is, both the content and the raters are of unknown quality. With no knowledge whatsoever about the raters, it is impossible to do better than a random estimate. We present efficient algorithms to accurately detect abuse that only require knowledge about the identity of a single 'good' agent, who rates contributions accurately more than half the time. We prove that our algorithm can infer the quality of contributions with error that rapidly converges to zero as the number of observations increases; we also numerically demonstrate that the algorithm has very high accuracy for much fewer observations. Finally, we analyze the robustness of our algorithms to manipulation by adversarial or strategic raters, an important issue in moderating online content, and quantify how the performance of the algorithm degrades with the number of manipulating agents. An analysis of the social video sharing platform YouTube reveals a high amount of community feedback through comments for published videos as well as through meta ratings for these comments. In this paper, we present an in-depth study of commenting and comment rating behavior on a sample of more than 6 million comments on 67,000 YouTube videos for which we analyzed dependencies between comments, views, comment ratings and topic categories. In addition, we studied the influence of sentiment expressed in comments on the ratings for these comments using the SentiWordNet thesaurus, a lexical WordNet-based resource containing sentiment annotations. Finally, to predict community acceptance for comments not yet rated, we built different classifiers for the estimation of ratings for these comments. The results of our large-scale evaluations are promising and indicate that community feedback on already rated comments can help to filter new unrated comments or suggest particularly useful but still unrated comments. In online communities, antisocial behavior such as trolling disrupts constructive discussion. While prior work suggests that trolling behavior is confined to a vocal and antisocial minority, we demonstrate that ordinary people can engage in such behavior as well. We propose two primary trigger mechanisms: the individual's mood, and the surrounding context of a discussion (e.g., exposure to prior trolling behavior). Through an experiment simulating an online discussion, we find that both negative mood and seeing troll posts by others significantly increases the probability of a user trolling, and together double this probability. To support and extend these results, we study how these same mechanisms play out in the wild via a data-driven, longitudinal analysis of a large online news discussion community. This analysis exposes temporal mood effects, and explores long range patterns of repeated exposure to trolling. A predictive model of trolling behavior reveals that mood and discussion context together can explain trolling behavior better than an individual's history of trolling. These results combine to suggest that ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, behave like trolls. This article presents evidence of performance deterioration in online user sessions quantified by studying a massive dataset containing over 55 million comments posted on Reddit in April 2015. After segmenting the sessions (i.e., periods of activity without a prolonged break) depending on their intensity (i.e., how many posts users produced during sessions), we observe a general decrease in the quality of comments produced by users over the course of sessions. We propose mixed-effects models that capture the impact of session intensity on comments, including their length, quality, and the responses they generate from the community. Our findings suggest performance deterioration: Sessions of increasing intensity are associated with the production of shorter, progressively less complex comments, which receive declining quality scores (as rated by other users), and are less and less engaging (i.e., they attract fewer responses). Our contribution evokes a connection between cognitive and attention dynamics and the usage of online social peer production platforms, specifically the effects of deterioration of user performance. OBJECTIVE. Recently, public attention has focused on the possibility that social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook are being widely used to sexually solicit underage youth, consequently increasing their vulnerability to sexual victimization. Beyond anecdotal accounts, however, whether victimization is more commonly reported in social networking sites is unknown. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS. The Growing up With Media Survey is a national cross-sectional online survey of 1588 youth. Participants were 10- to 15-year-old youth who have used the Internet at least once in the last 6 months. The main outcome measures were unwanted sexual solicitation on the Internet, defined as unwanted requests to talk about sex, provide personal sexual information, and do something sexual, and Internet harassment, defined as rude or mean comments, or spreading of rumors. RESULTS. Fifteen percent of all of the youth reported an unwanted sexual solicitation online in the last year; 4 reported an incident on a social networking site specifically. Thirty-three percent reported an online harassment in the last year; 9 reported an incident on a social networking site specifically. Among targeted youth, solicitations were more commonly reported via instant messaging (43 ) and in chat rooms (32 ), and harassment was more commonly reported in instant messaging (55 ) than through social networking sites (27 and 28 , respectively). CONCLUSIONS. Broad claims of victimization risk, at least defined as unwanted sexual solicitation or harassment, associated with social networking sites do not seem justified. Prevention efforts may have a greater impact if they focus on the psychosocial problems of youth instead of a specific Internet application, including funding for online youth outreach programs, school antibullying programs, and online mental health services. As online social networks expand their role beyond maintaining existing relationships, they may look to more faceted ratings to support the formation of new connections between their users. Our study focuses on one community employing faceted ratings, CouchSurfing.org, and combines data analysis of ratings, a large-scale survey, and in-depth interviews. In order to understand the ratings, we revisit the notions of friendship and trust and uncover an asymmetry: close friendship includes trust, but high levels of trust can be achieved without close friendship. To users, providing faceted ratings presents challenges, including differentiating and quantifying inherently subjective feelings such as friendship and trust, concern over a friend’s reaction to a rating, and knowledge of how ratings can affect others’ reputations. One consequence of these issues is the near absence of negative feedback, even though a small portion of actual experiences and privately held ratings are negative. We show how users take this into account when formulating and interpreting ratings, and discuss designs that could encourage more balanced feedback. Social media sites are challenged by both the scale and variety of deviant behavior online. While algorithms can detect spam and obscenity, behaviors that break community guidelines on some sites are difficult because they have multimodal subtleties (images and or text). Identifying these posts is often regulated to a few moderators. In this paper, we develop a deep learning classifier that jointly models textual and visual characteristics of pro-eating disorder content that violates community guidelines. Using a million Tumblr photo posts, our classifier discovers deviant content efficiently while also maintaining high recall (85 ). Our approach uses human sensitivity throughout to guide the creation, curation, and understanding of this approach to challenging, deviant content. We discuss how automation might impact community moderation, and the ethical and social obligations of this area. User feedback is considered to be a critical element in the information seeking process. An important aspect of the feedback cycle is relevance assessment that has progressively become a popular practice in web searching activities and interactive information retrieval (IR). The value of relevance assessment lies in the disambiguation of the user's information need, which is achieved by applying various feedback techniques. Such techniques vary from explicit to implicit and help determine the relevance of the retrieved documents. The former type of feedback is usually obtained through the explicit and intended indication of documents as relevant (positive feedback) or irrelevant (negative feedback). Explicit feedback is a robust method for improving a system's overall retrieval performance and producing better query reformulations [1], at the expense of users' cognitive resources. On the other hand, implicit feedback techniques tend to collect information on search behavior in a more intelligent and unobtrusive manner. By doing so, they disengage the users from the cognitive burden of document rating and relevance judgments. Information-seeking activities such as reading time, saving, printing, selecting and referencing have been all treated as indicators of relevance, despite the lack of sufficient evidence to support their effectiveness [2]. Besides their apparent differences, both categories of feedback techniques determine document relevance with respect to the cognitive and situational levels of the interactive dialogue that occurs between the user and the retrieval system [5]. However, this approach does not account for the dynamic interplay and adaptation that takes place between the different dialogue levels, but most importantly it does not consider the affective dimension of interaction. Users interact with intentions, motivations and feelings apart from real-life problems and information objects, which are all critical aspects of cognition and decision-making [3][4]. By evaluating users' affective response towards an information object (e.g. a document), prior and post to their exposure to it, a more accurate understanding of the object's properties and degree of relevance to the current information need may be facilitated. Furthermore, systems that can detect and respond accordingly to user emotions could potentially improve the naturalness of human-computer interaction and progressively optimize their retrieval strategy. The current study investigates the role of emotions in the information seeking process, as the latter are communicated through multi-modal interaction, and reconsiders relevance feedback with respect to what occurs on the affective level of interaction as well. We investigate regrets associated with users' posts on a popular social networking site. Our findings are based on a series of interviews, user diaries, and online surveys involving 569 American Facebook users. Their regrets revolved around sensitive topics, content with strong sentiment, lies, and secrets. Our research reveals several possible causes of why users make posts that they later regret: (1) they want to be perceived in favorable ways, (2) they do not think about their reason for posting or the consequences of their posts, (3) they misjudge the culture and norms within their social circles, (4) they are in a "hot" state of high emotion when posting, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, (5) their postings are seen by an unintended audience, (6) they do not foresee how their posts could be perceived by people within their intended audience, and (7) they misunderstand or misuse the Facebook platform. Some reported incidents had serious repercussions, such as breaking up relationships or job losses. We discuss methodological considerations in studying negative experiences associated with social networking posts, as well as ways of helping users of social networking sites avoid such regrets. A wide range of behavior may be seen as destructive to online communities. Yet behavior that is ‘bad’ in one community may be celebrated in another. The work of community maintenance is therefore strongly contextual, involving complex choices due to differing norms, community cross-membership, and the need to invoke fairness. The experienced, “lived in” work of moderators; how they enact norms and make choices about social maintenance, remains poorly understood. Our study addresses this gap, using a negotiated order lens. We employed netnographic techniques, analyzing online interviews with moderators of sub-communities in Reddit, and records of critical incidents. We find that moderators are intuitive prosecutors who draw on a variety of logics to accomplish their work. Controlling bad behavior, articulating and enforcing norms is, therefore, a collective accomplishment through which moderators make choices, create a jurisprudence record, and reconcile nested community norms in the maintenance of social order. The lack of user activity on search results was until recently perceived as a sign of user dissatisfaction from retrieval performance, often, referring to such inactivity as a failed search (negative search abandonment). However, recent studies suggest that some search tasks can be achieved in the contents of the results displayed without the need to click through them (positive search abandonment); thus they emphasize the need to discriminate between successful and failed searches without follow-up clicks. In this paper, we study users’ inactivity on search results in relation to their pursued search goals and investigate the impact of displayed results on user clicking decisions. Our study examines two types of post-query user inactivity: pre-determined and post-determined depending on whether the user started searching with a preset intention to look for answers only within the result snippets and did not intend to click through the results, or the user inactivity was decided after the user had reviewed the list of retrieved documents. Our findings indicate that 27 of web searches in our sample are conducted with a pre-determined intention to look for answers in the results’ list and 75 of them can be satisfied in the contents of the displayed results. Moreover, in nearly half the queries that did not yield result visits, the desired information is found in the result snippets. As crowd-sourced curation of news and information become the norm, it is important to understand not only how individuals consume information through social news Web sites, but also how they contribute to their ranking systems. In this paper, we introduce and make available a new data set containing the activity logs that recorded all activity for 309 Reddit users for one year. Using this newly collected data, we present findings that highlight the browsing and voting behavior of the study’s participants. We find that most users do not read the article that they vote on, and that, in total, 73 of posts were rated (i.e., upvoted or downvoted) without first viewing the content. We also show the evidence of cognitive fatigue in the browsing sessions of users that are most likely to vote.