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.
The setting considered in this paper, that of comments on news sites and blogs, has also been used to study other social phenomena such as controversy @cite_20 , political polarization @cite_22 @cite_8 , and community formation @cite_10 @cite_30 . News commenting systems have also been analyzed from a community design perspective @cite_2 @cite_16 @cite_32 , including a particular focus on understanding what types of articles are likely to attract a large volume of user comments @cite_28 @cite_15 . In contrast, our analysis focuses on the effects of voting on the behavior of the author whose content is being evaluated.
@cite_30 @cite_22 @cite_8 @cite_28 @cite_32 @cite_2 @cite_15 @cite_16 @cite_10 @cite_20
2155929351 2962764888 1595917920 2597730742 2217796615 1985710361 2040107208 84889933 2508030421 2119758323
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. Online user comments contain valuable user opinions. Comments vary greatly in quality and detecting high quality comments is a subtask of opinion mining and summarization research. Finding attentive comments that provide some reasoning is highly valuable in understanding the user’s opinion particularly in sociopolitical opinion mining and aids policy makers, social organizations or government sectors in decision making. In this paper we study the problem of detecting thoughtful comments. We empirically study various textual features, discourse relations and relevance features to predict thoughtful comments. We use logistic regression model and test on the datasets related to sociopolitical content. We found that the most useful features include the discourse relations and relevance features along with basic textual features to predict the comment quality in terms of thoughtfulness. In our experiments on two different datasets, we could achieve a prediction score of 79.37 and 73.47 in terms of F-measure on the two data sets, respectively. 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. Social news aggregator services generate readers’ subjective reactions to news opinion articles. Can we use those as a resource to classify articles as liberal or conservative, even without knowing the self-identified political leaning of most users? We applied three semi-supervised learning methods that propagate classifications of political news articles and users as conservative or liberal, based on the assumption that liberal users will vote for liberal articles more often, and similarly for conservative users and articles. Starting from a few labeled articles and users, the algorithms propagate political leaning labels to the entire graph. In cross-validation, the best algorithm achieved 99.6 accuracy on held-out users and 96.3 accuracy on held-out articles. Adding social data such as users’ friendship or text features such as cosine similarity did not improve accuracy. The propagation algorithms, using the subjective liking data from users, also performed better than an SVM based text classifier, which achieved 92.0 accuracy on articles. Comments left by readers on Web documents contain valuable information that can be utilized in different information retrieval tasks including document search, visualization, and summarization. In this paper, we study the problem of comments-oriented document summarization and aim to summarize a Web document (e.g., a blog post) by considering not only its content, but also the comments left by its readers. We identify three relations (namely, topic, quotation, and mention) by which comments can be linked to one another, and model the relations in three graphs. The importance of each comment is then scored by: (i) graph-based method, where the three graphs are merged into a multi-relation graph; (ii) tensor-based method, where the three graphs are used to construct a 3rd-order tensor. To generate a comments-oriented summary, we extract sentences from the given Web document using either feature-biased approach or uniform-document approach. The former scores sentences to bias keywords derived from comments; while the latter scores sentences uniformly with comments. In our experiments using a set of blog posts with manually labeled sentences, our proposed summarization methods utilizing comments showed significant improvement over those not using comments. The methods using feature-biased sentence extraction approach were observed to outperform that using uniform-document approach. Many websites provide commenting facilities for users to express their opinions or sentiments with regards to content items, such as, videos, news stories, blog posts, etc. Previous studies have shown that user comments contain valuable information that can provide insight on Web documents and may be utilized for various tasks. This work presents a model that predicts, for a given user, suitable news stories for commenting. The model achieves encouraging results regarding the ability to connect users with stories they are likely to comment on. This provides grounds for personalized recommendations of stories to users who may want to take part in their discussion. We combine a content-based approach with a collaborative-filtering approach (utilizing users' co-commenting patterns) in a latent factor modeling framework. We experiment with several variations of the model's loss function in order to adjust it to the problem domain. We evaluate the results on two datasets and show that employing co-commenting patterns improves upon using content features alone, even with as few as two available comments per story. Finally, we try to incorporate available social network data into the model. Interestingly, the social data does not lead to substantial performance gains, suggesting that the value of social data for this task is quite negligible. An overwhelming number of news articles are available every day via the internet. Unfortunately, it is impossible for us to peruse more than a handful; furthermore it is difficult to ascertain an article’s social context, i.e., is it popular, what sorts of people are reading it, etc. In this paper, we develop a system to address this problem in the restricted domain of political news by harnessing implicit and explicit contextual information from the blogosphere. Specifically, we track thousands of blogs and the news articles they cite, collapsing news articles that have highly overlapping content. We then tag each article with the number of blogs citing it, the political orientation of those blogs, and the level of emotional charge expressed in the blog posts that link to the news article. We summarize and present the results to the user via a novel visualization which displays this contextual information; the user can then find the most popular articles, the articles most cited by liberals, the articles most emotionally discussed in the political blogosphere, etc. Many social media platforms offer a mechanism for readers to react to comments, both positively and negatively, which in aggregate can be thought of as community endorsement. This paper addresses the problem of predicting community endorsement in online discussions, leveraging both the participant response structure and the text of the comment. The different types of features are integrated in a neural network that uses a novel architecture to learn latent modes of discussion structure that perform as well as deep neural networks but are more interpretable. In addition, the latent modes can be used to weight text features thereby improving prediction accuracy. Is a polarized society inevitable, where people choose to be exposed to only political news and commentary that reinforces their existing viewpoints? We examine the relationship between the numbers of supporting and challenging items in a collection of political opinion items and readers' satisfaction, and then evaluate whether simple presentation techniques such as highlighting agreeable items or showing them first can increase satisfaction when fewer agreeable items are present. We find individual differences: some people are diversity-seeking while others are challenge-averse. For challenge-averse readers, highlighting appears to make satisfaction with sets of mostly agreeable items more extreme, but does not increase satisfaction overall, and sorting agreeable content first appears to decrease satisfaction rather than increasing it. These findings have important implications for builders of websites that aggregate content reflecting different positions.