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 contributions come in the context of an extensive literature examining social media voting systems. One major research direction is concerned with predicting the helpfulness ratings of product reviews starting from textual and social factors @cite_5 @cite_0 @cite_31 @cite_39 @cite_17 @cite_38 and understanding the underlaying social dynamics @cite_13 @cite_3 @cite_27 @cite_25 . The mechanisms driving user voting behavior and the related community effects have been studied in other contexts, such as Q &A sites @cite_41 , Wikipedia @cite_14 @cite_26 @cite_36 , YouTube @cite_1 , social news aggregation sites @cite_29 @cite_23 @cite_37 and online multiplayer games @cite_6 . Our work adds an important dimension to this general line of research, by providing a framework for analyzing the effects votes have on the author of the evaluated content.
@cite_41 @cite_36 @cite_29 @cite_3 @cite_5 @cite_38 @cite_39 @cite_23 @cite_17 @cite_37 @cite_26 @cite_6 @cite_27 @cite_25 @cite_14 @cite_1 @cite_0 @cite_31 @cite_13
2155929351 2962764888 2597730742 2063248556 2130565704 2901662176 2120144006 153654188 196507789 1987452935 2909401526 2540795244 2130852547 1983046573 2117134415 2606550175 2143304863 2007810306 2098173428
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. 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. 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. Social networks are increasingly being used to conduct polls. We introduce a simple model of such social polling. We suppose agents vote sequentially, but the order in which agents choose to vote is not necessarily fixed. We also suppose that an agent's vote is influenced by the votes of their friends who have already voted. Despite its simplicity, this model provides useful insights into a number of areas including social polling, sequential voting, and manipulation. We prove that the number of candidates and the network structure affect the computational complexity of computing which candidate necessarily or possibly can win in such a social poll. For social networks with bounded treewidth and a bounded number of candidates, we provide polynomial algorithms for both problems. In other cases, we prove that computing which candidates necessarily or possibly win are computationally intractable. To help their users to discover important items at a particular time, major websites like Twitter, Yelp, TripAdvisor or NYTimes provide Top-K recommendations (e.g., 10 Trending Topics, Top 5 Hotels in Paris or 10 Most Viewed News Stories), which rely on crowdsourced popularity signals to select the items. However, different sections of a crowd may have different preferences, and there is a large silent majority who do not explicitly express their opinion. Also, the crowd often consists of actors like bots, spammers, or people running orchestrated campaigns. Recommendation algorithms today largely do not consider such nuances, hence are vulnerable to strategic manipulation by small but hyper-active user groups. To fairly aggregate the preferences of all users while recommending top-K items, we borrow ideas from prior research on social choice theory, and identify a voting mechanism called Single Transferable Vote (STV) as having many of the fairness properties we desire in top-K item (s)elections. We develop an innovative mechanism to attribute preferences of silent majority which also make STV completely operational. We show the generalizability of our approach by implementing it on two different real-world datasets. Through extensive experimentation and comparison with state-of-the-art techniques, we show that our proposed approach provides maximum user satisfaction, and cuts down drastically on items disliked by most but hyper-actively promoted by a few users. When a website hosting user-generated content asks users a straightforward question - "Was this content helpful?" with one "Yes" and one "No" button as the two possible answers - one might expect to get a straightforward answer. In this paper, we explore how users respond to this question and find that their responses are not quite straightforward after all. Using data from Amazon product reviews, we present evidence that users do not make absolute, independent voting decisions based on individual review quality alone. Rather, whether users vote at all, as well as the polarity of their vote for any given review, depends on the context in which they view it - reviews receive a larger overall number of votes when they are 'misranked', and the polarity of votes becomes more positive negative when the review is ranked lower higher than it deserves. We distill these empirical findings into a new probabilistic model of rating behavior that includes the dependence of rating decisions on context. Understanding and formally modeling voting behavior is crucial for designing learning mechanisms and algorithms for review ranking, and we conjecture that many of our findings also apply to user behavior in other online content-rating settings. Using social media for political discourse is becoming common practice, especially around election time. One interesting aspect of this trend is the possibility of pulsing the public’s opinion about the elections, and that has attracted the interest of many researchers and the press. Allegedly, predicting electoral outcomes from social media data can be feasible and even simple. Positive results have been reported, but without an analysis on what principle enables them. Our work puts to test the purported predictive power of socialmedia metrics against the 2010 US congressional elections. Here, we applied techniques that had reportedly led to positive election predictions in the past, on the Twitter data collected from the 2010 US congressional elections. Unfortunately, we find no correlation between the analysis results and the electoral outcomes, contradicting previous reports. Observing that 80 years of polling research would support our findings, we argue that one should not be accepting predictions about events using social media data as a black box. Instead, scholarly research should be accompanied by a model explaining the predictive power of social media, when there is one. In computational social choice, one important problem is to take the votes of a subelectorate (subset of the voters), and summarize them using a small number of bits. This needs to be done in such a way that, if all that we know is the summary, as well as the votes of voters outside the subelectorate, we can conclude which of the m alternatives wins. This corresponds to the notion of compilation complexity, the minimum number of bits required to summarize the votes for a particular rule, which was introduced by [IJCAI-09]. We study three different types of compilation complexity. The first, studied by , depends on the size of the subelectorate but not on the size of the complement (the voters outside the subelectorate). The second depends on the size of the complement but not on the size of the subelectorate. The third depends on both. We first investigate the relations among the three types of compilation complexity. Then, we give upper and lower bounds on all three types of compilation complexity for the most prominent voting rules. We show that for l-approval (when l ≤ m 2), Borda, and Bucklin, the bounds for all three types are asymptotically tight, up to a multiplicative constant; for l-approval (when l > m 2), plurality with runoff, all Condorcet consistent rules that are based on unweighted majority graphs (including Copeland and voting trees), and all Condorcet consistent rules that are based on the order of pairwise elections (including ranked pairs and maximin), the bounds for all three types are asymptotically tight up to a multiplicative constant when the sizes of the subelectorate and its complement are both larger than m1+∊ for some ∊ > 0. This paper reviews the state of the art and some emerging issues in research areas related to pattern analysis and monitoring of web-based social communities. This research area is important for several reasons. First, the presence of near-ubiquitous low-cost computing and communication technologies has enabled people to access and share information at an unprecedented scale. The scale of the data necessitates new research for making sense of such content. Furthermore, popular websites with sophisticated media sharing and notification features allow users to stay in touch with friends and loved ones; these sites also help to form explicit and implicit social groups. These social groups are an important source of information to organize and to manage multimedia data. In this article, we study how media-rich social networks provide additional insight into familiar multimedia research problems, including tagging and video ranking. In particular, we advance the idea that the contextual and social aspects of media are as important for successful multimedia applications as is the media content. We examine the inter-relationship between content and social context through the prism of three key questions. First, how do we extract the context in which social interactions occur? Second, does social interaction provide value to the media object? Finally, how do social media facilitate the repurposing of shared content and engender cultural memes? We present three case studies to examine these questions in detail. In the first case study, we show how to discover structure latent in the social media data, and use the discovered structure to organize Flickr photo streams. In the second case study, we discuss how to determine the interestingness of conversations—and of participants—around videos uploaded to YouTube. Finally, we show how the analysis of visual content, in particular tracing of content remixes, can help us understand the relationship among YouTube participants. For each case, we present an overview of recent work and review the state of the art. We also discuss two emerging issues related to the analysis of social networks—robust data sampling and scalable data analysis. Elections involving a large voter population often lead to outcomes that surprise many. A better prediction of the true outcome helps reduce the adverse effect of surprise on the economy of a sizable population. This paper starts from the basic observation that individuals in the underlying population build estimates of the distribution of preferences of the whole population based on their immediate neighbors in the underlying social network. The outcome of the election leads to a surprise if these local estimates contradict the outcome of the election for some fixed voting rule. To get a quantitative understanding, we propose a novel mathematical model of the setting where the individuals in the population and their connections are described by a random graph with connection probabilities that are biased based on the preferences of the individuals. Each individual also has some estimate of the bias in their connections. The connection model is inspired by the homophily effect in social networks. We show that the election outcome leads to a surprise if the discrepancy between the estimated bias and the true bias in the local connections exceeds a certain threshold, and confirm the phenomenon that surprising outcomes are associated only with closely contested elections. We consider large elections with networked voters and compare standard voting rules based on their performance on surprise. Our results show that the rules have different behavior for different parts of the population. It also hints at an impossibility result that any reasonable voting rule will be less surprising for all parts of a population. To attest some of our theoretical predictions, we experiment with the large dataset of UK-EU referendum (a.k.a. Brexit). Using social media for political discourse is increasingly becoming common practice, especially around election time. Arguably, one of the most interesting aspects of this trend is the possibility of ''pulsing'' the public's opinion in near real-time and, thus, it has attracted the interest of many researchers as well as news organizations. Recently, it has been reported that predicting electoral outcomes from social media data is feasible, in fact it is quite simple to compute. Positive results have been reported in a few occasions, but without an analysis on what principle enables them. This, however, should be surprising given the significant differences in the demographics between likely voters and users of online social networks. This work aims to test the predictive power of social media metrics against several Senate races of the two recent US Congressional elections. We review the findings of other researchers and we try to duplicate their findings both in terms of data volume and sentiment analysis. Our research aim is to shed light on why predictions of electoral (or other social events) using social media might or might not be feasible. In this paper, we offer two conclusions and a proposal: First, we find that electoral predictions using the published research methods on Twitter data are not better than chance. Second, we reveal some major challenges that limit the predictability of election results through data from social media. We propose a set of standards that any theory aiming to predict elections (or other social events) using social media should follow. This paper aims at discovering community structure in rich media social networks, through analysis of time-varying, multi-relational data. Community structure represents the latent social context of user actions. It has important applications in information tasks such as search and recommendation. Social media has several unique challenges. (a) In social media, the context of user actions is constantly changing and co-evolving; hence the social context contains time-evolving multi-dimensional relations. (b) The social context is determined by the available system features and is unique in each social media website. In this paper we propose MetaFac (MetaGraph Factorization), a framework that extracts community structures from various social contexts and interactions. Our work has three key contributions: (1) metagraph, a novel relational hypergraph representation for modeling multi-relational and multi-dimensional social data; (2) an efficient factorization method for community extraction on a given metagraph; (3) an on-line method to handle time-varying relations through incremental metagraph factorization. Extensive experiments on real-world social data collected from the Digg social media website suggest that our technique is scalable and is able to extract meaningful communities based on the social media contexts. We illustrate the usefulness of our framework through prediction tasks. We outperform baseline methods (including aspect model and tensor analysis) by an order of magnitude. The recent surge in the usage of social media has created an enormous amount of user-generated content (UGC). While there are streams of research that seek to mine UGC, these research studies seldom tackle analysis of this textual content from a quality management perspective. In this study, we synthesize existing research studies on text mining and propose an integrated text analytic framework for product defect discovery. The framework effectively leverages rich social media content and quantifies the text using various automatically extracted signal cues. These extracted signal cues can then be used as modeling inputs for product defect discovery. We showcase the usefulness of the framework by performing product defect discovery using UGC in both the automotive and the consumer electronics domains. We use principal component analysis and logistic regression to produce a multivariate explanatory analysis relating defects to quantitative measures derived from text. For our samples, we find that a selection of distinctive terms, product features, and semantic factors are strong indicators of defects, whereas stylistic, social, and sentiment features are not. For high sales volume products, we demonstrate that significant corporate value is derivable from a reduction in defect discovery time and consequently defective product units in circulation. Social media sites are often guided by a core group of committed users engaged in various forms of governance. A crucial aspect of this type of governance is deliberation, in which such a group reaches decisions on issues of importance to the site. Despite its crucial — though subtle — role in how a number of prominent social media sites function, there has been relatively little investigation of the deliberative aspects of social media governance. Here we explore this issue, investigating a particular deliberative process that is extensive, public, and recorded: the promotion of Wikipedia admins, which is determined by elections that engage committed members of the Wikipedia community. We find that the group decision-making at the heart of this process exhibits several fundamental forms of relative assessment. First we observe that the chance that a voter will support a candidate is strongly dependent on the relationship between characteristics of the voter and the candidate. Second we investigate how both individual voter decisions and overall election outcomes can be based on models that take into account the sequential, public nature of the voting. We study a generic framework that provides a unified view on two important classes of problems: (i) extensions of the k-median problem where clients are interested in having multiple facilities in their vicinity (e.g., due to the fact that, with some small probability, the closest facility might be malfunctioning and so might not be available for using), and (ii) finding winners according to some appealing multiwinner election rules, i.e., election system aimed for choosing representatives bodies, such as parliaments, based on preferences of a population of voters over individual candidates. Each problem in our framework is associated with a vector of weights: we show that the approximability of the problem depends on structural properties of these vectors. We specifically focus on the harmonic sequence of weights for which the objective function interpreted in a multiwinner election setup reflects to the well-known Proportional Approval Voting (PAV) rule. Our main result is that, due to the specific (harmonic) structure of weights, the problem allows constant factor approximation. This is surprising since the problem can be interpreted as a variant of the k-median problem where we do not assume that the connection costs satisfy the triangle inequality. The algorithm we propose is based on dependent rounding [Srinivasan, FOCS'01] applied to the solution of a natural LP-relaxation of the problem. The rounding process is well known to produce distributions over integral solutions satisfying Negative Correlation (NC), which is usually sufficient for the analysis of approximation guarantees offered by rounding procedures. In our analysis, however, we need to use the fact that the carefully implemented rounding process satisfies a stronger property, called Negative Association (NA), which allows us to apply standard concentration bounds for conditional random variables. We develop a formal model of opinion polls in elections and study how they influence the voting behaviour of the participating agents, and thereby election outcomes. This approach is particularly relevant to the study of collective decision making by means of voting in multiagent systems, where it is reasonable to assume that we can precisely model the amount of information available to agents and where agents can be expected to follow relatively simple rules when adjusting their behaviour in response to polls. We analyse two settings, one where a single agent strategises in view of a single poll, and one where multiple agents repeatedly update their voting intentions in view of a sequence of polls. In the single-poll setting we vary the amount of information a poll provides and examine, for different voting rules, when an agent starts and stops having an incentive to manipulate the election. In the repeated-poll setting, using both analytical and experimental methods, we study how the properties of different voting rules are affected under different sets of assumptions on how agents will respond to poll information. Together, our results clarify under which circumstances sharing information via opinion polls can improve the quality of election outcomes and under which circumstances it may have negative effects, due to the increased opportunities for manipulation it provides. In an expert search task, the users’ need is to identify people who have relevant expertise to a topic of interest. An expert search system predicts and ranks the expertise of a set of candidate persons with respect to the users’ query. In this paper, we propose a novel approach for predicting and ranking candidate expertise with respect to a query, called the Voting Model for Expert Search. In the Voting Model, we see the problem of ranking experts as a voting problem. We model the voting problem using 12 various voting techniques, which are inspired from the data fusion field. We investigate the effectiveness of the Voting Model and the associated voting techniques across a range of document weighting models, in the context of the TREC 2005 and TREC 2006 Enterprise tracks. The evaluation results show that the voting paradigm is very effective, without using any query or collection-specific heuristics. Moreover, we show that improving the quality of the underlying document representation can significantly improve the retrieval performance of the voting techniques on an expert search task. In particular, we demonstrate that applying field-based weighting models improves the ranking of candidates. Finally, we demonstrate that the relative performance of the voting techniques for the proposed approach is stable on a given task regardless of the used weighting models, suggesting that some of the proposed voting techniques will always perform better than other voting techniques. With the rapid growth of the Internet, the ability of users to create and publish content has created active electronic communities that provide a wealth of product information. However, the high volume of reviews that are typically published for a single product makes harder for individuals as well as manufacturers to locate the best reviews and understand the true underlying quality of a product. In this paper, we reexamine the impact of reviews on economic outcomes like product sales and see how different factors affect social outcomes such as their perceived usefulness. Our approach explores multiple aspects of review text, such as subjectivity levels, various measures of readability and extent of spelling errors to identify important text-based features. In addition, we also examine multiple reviewer-level features such as average usefulness of past reviews and the self-disclosed identity measures of reviewers that are displayed next to a review. Our econometric analysis reveals that the extent of subjectivity, informativeness, readability, and linguistic correctness in reviews matters in influencing sales and perceived usefulness. Reviews that have a mixture of objective, and highly subjective sentences are negatively associated with product sales, compared to reviews that tend to include only subjective or only objective information. However, such reviews are rated more informative (or helpful) by other users. By using Random Forest-based classifiers, we show that we can accurately predict the impact of reviews on sales and their perceived usefulness. We examine the relative importance of the three broad feature categories: “reviewer-related” features, “review subjectivity” features, and “review readability” features, and find that using any of the three feature sets results in a statistically equivalent performance as in the case of using all available features. This paper is the first study that integrates econometric, text mining, and predictive modeling techniques toward a more complete analysis of the information captured by user-generated online reviews in order to estimate their helpfulness and economic impact.