In order to evaluate the prevalence of security and privacy practices on a representative sample of the Web, researchers rely on website popularity rankings such as the Alexa list. While the validity and representativeness of these rankings are rarely questioned, our findings show the contrary: we show for four main rankings how their inherent properties (similarity, stability, representativeness, responsiveness and benignness) affect their composition and therefore potentially skew the conclusions made in studies. Moreover, we find that it is trivial for an adversary to manipulate the composition of these lists. We are the first to empirically validate that the ranks of domains in each of the lists are easily altered, in the case of Alexa through as little as a single HTTP request. This allows adversaries to manipulate rankings on a large scale and insert malicious domains into whitelists or bend the outcome of research studies to their will. To overcome the limitations of such rankings, we propose improvements to reduce the fluctuations in list composition and guarantee better defenses against manipulation. To allow the research community to work with reliable and reproducible rankings, we provide Tranco, an improved ranking that we offer through an online service available at this https URL.
In 2006, Lo and Sedhain @cite_9 studied the reliability of website rankings in terms of agreement, from the standpoint of advertisers and consumers looking for the most relevant sites. They discussed three ranking methods (traffic data, incoming links and opinion polls) and analyzed the top 100 websites for six providers, all of which are still online but, except for Alexa, have since stopped updating their rankings.
@cite_9
2212259974 2072918779 2095968786 1984936212
Online reviews on products and services can be very useful for customers, but they need to be protected from manipulation. So far, most studies have focused on analyzing online reviews from a single hosting site. How could one leverage information from multiple review hosting sites? This is the key question in our work. In response, we develop a systematic methodology to merge, compare, and evaluate reviews from multiple hosting sites. We focus on hotel reviews and use more than 15 million reviews from more than 3.5 million users spanning three prominent travel sites. Our work consists of three thrusts: (a) we develop novel features capable of identifying cross-site discrepancies effectively, (b) we conduct arguably the first extensive study of cross-site variations using real data, and develop a hotel identity-matching method with 93 accuracy, (c) we introduce the TrueView score, as a proof of concept that cross-site analysis can better inform the end user. Our results show that: (1) we detect 7 times more suspicious hotels by using multiple sites compared to using the three sites in isolation, and (2) we find that 20 of all hotels appearing in all three sites seem to have low trustworthiness score. Our work is an early effort that explores the advantages and the challenges in using multiple reviewing sites towards more informed decision making. In recent years, information trustworthiness has become a serious issue when user-generated contents prevail in our information world. In this paper, we investigate the important problem of estimating information trustworthiness from the perspective of correlating and comparing multiple data sources. To a certain extent, the consistency degree is an indicator of information reliability--Information unanimously agreed by all the sources is more likely to be reliable. Based on this principle, we develop an effective computational approach to identify consistent information from multiple data sources. Particularly, we analyze vast amounts of information collected from multiple review platforms (multiple sources) in which people can rate and review the items they have purchased. The major challenge is that different platforms attract diverse sets of users, and thus information cannot be compared directly at the surface. However, latent reasons hidden in user ratings are mostly shared by multiple sources, and thus inconsistency about an item only appears when some source provides ratings deviating from the common latent reasons. Therefore, we propose a novel two-step procedure to calculate information consistency degrees for a set of items which are rated by multiple sets of users on different platforms. We first build a Multi-Source Deep Belief Network (MSDBN) to identify the common reasons hidden in multi-source rating data, and then calculate a consistency score for each item by comparing individual sources with the reconstructed data derived from the latent reasons. We conduct experiments on real user ratings collected from Orbitz, Priceline and TripAdvisor on all the hotels in Las Vegas and New York City. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach successfully finds the hotels that receive inconsistent, and possibly unreliable, ratings. Over the years, the web has evolved from simple text content from one server to a complex ecosystem with different types of content from servers spread across several administrative domains. There is anecdotal evidence of users being frustrated with high page load times or when obscure scripts cause their browser windows to freeze. Because page load times are known to directly impact user satisfaction, providers would like to understand if and how the complexity of their websites affects the user experience. While there is an extensive literature on measuring web graphs, website popularity, and the nature of web traffic, there has been little work in understanding how complex individual websites are, and how this complexity impacts the clients' experience. This paper is a first step to address this gap. To this end, we identify a set of metrics to characterize the complexity of websites both at a content-level (e.g., number and size of images) and service-level (e.g., number of servers origins). We find that the distributions of these metrics are largely independent of a website's popularity rank. However, some categories (e.g., News) are more complex than others. More than 60 of websites have content from at least 5 non-origin sources and these contribute more than 35 of the bytes downloaded. In addition, we analyze which metrics are most critical for predicting page render and load times and find that the number of objects requested is the most important factor. With respect to variability in load times, however, we find that the number of servers is the best indicator. Online service providers are engaged in constant conflict with miscreants who try to siphon a portion of legitimate traffic to make illicit profits. We study the abuse of "trending" search terms, in which miscreants place links to malware-distributing or ad-filled web sites in web search and Twitter results, by collecting and analyzing measurements over nine months from multiple sources. We devise heuristics to identify ad-filled sites, report on the prevalence of malware and ad-filled sites in trending-term search results, and measure the success in blocking such content. We uncover collusion across offending domains using network analysis, and use regression analysis to conclude that both malware and ad-filled sites thrive on less popular, and less profitable trending terms. We build an economic model informed by our measurements and conclude that ad-filled sites and malware distribution may be economic substitutes. Finally, because our measurement interval spans February 2011, when Google announced changes to its ranking algorithm to root out low-quality sites, we can assess the impact of search-engine intervention on the profits miscreants can achieve.