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
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.