How community feedback shapes user behavior

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM 2014

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 41-50

  Cheng, Justin ^a   Danescu Niculescu Mizil, Cristian ^b   Leskovec, Jure ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR SOFTWARE SYSTEMS   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; COMPLEX NETWORKS; FEEDBACK; SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

BEHAVIORAL CHANGES; CONTENT FILTERING; NO FEEDBACKS; PERSONALIZATIONS; SOCIAL FEEDBACKS; SOCIAL MEDIA SYSTEMS; USER BEHAVIORS; USER FEEDBACK;

QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84909950287     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (44)

1. Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., and Leskovec, J. 2012a. Discovering Value from Community Activity on Focused Question Answering Sites: A Case Study of Stack Overflow. In Proc. KDD.
2. Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., and Leskovec, J. 2012b. Effects of user similarity in social media. In Proc. WSDM.
3. Balasubramanyan, R., Cohen, W. W., Pierce, D., and Redlawsk, D. P. 2012. Modeling polarizing topics: When do different political communities respond differently to the same news? In Proc. ICWSM.
4. Baron, A., Perone, M., and Galizio, M. 1991. Analyzing the reinforcement process at the human level: can application and behavioristic interpretation replace laboratory research? Behavioral Analysis.
5. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., and Vohs, K. D. 2001. Bad is stronger than good. Rev. of General Psychology.
6. Burke, M., and Kraut, R. 2008. Mopping up: modeling wikipedia promotion decisions. In Proc. CSCW.
7. Cartwright, D., and Harary, F. 1956. Structural balance: a generalization of heiders theory. Psychological Rev.
8. Chen, Z., and Berger, J. 2013. When, Why, and How Controversy Causes Conversation. J. of Consumer Research.
9. Chen, P.-Y., Dhanasobhon, S., and Smith, M. D. 2008. All Reviews are Not Created Equal: The Disaggregate Impact of Reviews and Reviewers at Amazon.Com. SSRN eLibrary.
10. Cialdini, R. B., and Trost, M. R. 1998. Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. McGraw-Hill.
11. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Kossinets, G., Kleinberg, J., and Lee, L. 2009. How opinions are received by online communities: A case study on Amazon.com helpfulness votes. In Proc. WWW.
12. Diakopoulos, N., and Naaman, M. 2011. Towards quality discourse in online news comments. In Proc. CSCW.
13. Ghose, A., and Ipeirotis, P. G. 2007. Designing Novel Review Ranking Systems: Predicting the Usefulness and Impact of Reviews. Proc. ACM EC.
14. Gilbert, E., Bergstrom, T., and Karahalios, K. 2009. Blogs are Echo Chambers: Blogs are Echo Chambers. In Proc. HICSS.
15. Gómez, V., Kaltenbrunner, A., and López, V. 2008. Statistical analysis of the social network and discussion threads in Slashdot. In Proc. WWW.
16. Gonzalez-Bailon, S., Kaltenbrunner, A., and Banchs, R. E. 2010. The structure of political discussion networks: A model for the analysis of online deliberation. J. of Information Technology.
17. Heymann, P., Koutrika, G., and Garcia-Molina, H. 2007. Fighting Spam on Social Web Sites: A Survey of Approaches and Future Challenges. IEEE Internet Computing.
18. Kanouse, D. E., and Hanson, L. R. 1972. Negativity in Evaluations. General Learning Press.
19. Kim, S.-M., Pantel, P., Chklovski, T., and Pennacchiotti, M. 2006. Automatically assessing review helpfulness. Proc. EMNLP.
20. Lampe, C., and Johnston, E. 2005. Follow the (Slash) Dot: Effects of Feedback on New Members in an Online Community. In Proc. ACM SIGGROUP.
21. Lampe, C., and Resnick, P. 2004. Slash(dot) and burn: Distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. Proc. CHI.
22. Leskovec, J., Huttenlocher, D., and Kleinberg, J. 2010. Governance in Social Media: A case study of the Wikipedia promotion process. In Proc. ICWSM.
23. Lim, E.-P., Nguyen, V.-A., Jindal, N., Liu, B., and Lauw, H. W. 2010. Detecting product review spammers using rating behaviors. Proc. CIKM.
24. Liu, J., Cao, Y., Lin, C.-Y., Huang, Y., and Zhou, M. 2007. Lowquality product review detection in opinion summarization. Proc. EMNLP-CoNLL.
25. Lu, Y., Tsaparas, P., Ntoulas, A., and Polanyi, L. 2010. Exploiting social context for review quality prediction. In Proc. WWW.
26. Mishne, G., and Glance, N. 2006. Leave a reply: An analysis of weblog comments. In WWE.
27. Muchnik, L., Aral, S., and Taylor, S. 2013. Social Influence Bias: A Randomized Experiment. Science 341.
28. Mudambi, S. M., and Schuff, D. 2010. What makes a helpful online review? A study of consumer reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quarterly.
29. Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., and Glance, N. 2012. Spotting Fake Reviewer Groups in Consumer Reviews. In Proc. WWW.
30. Ott, M., Cardie, C., and Hancock, J. 2012. Estimating the prevalence of deception in online review communities. In Proc. WWW.
31. Otterbacher, J. 2009. Helpfulness in online communities: a measure of message quality. Proc. CHI.
32. Park, S., Ko, M., Kim, J., Liu, Y., and Song, J. 2011. The politics of comments: predicting political orientation of news stories with commenters sentiment patterns. In Proc. CSCW.
33. Parsons, T. 1951. The social system. London: Routledge.
34. Rosenbaum, P. R., and Rubin, D. B. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika.
35. Shachaf, P., and Hara, N. 2010. Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls. J. of Information Science.
36. Shores, K., He, Y., Swanenburg, K. L., Kraut, R., and Riedl, J. 2014. The Identification of Deviance and its Impact on Retention in a Multiplayer Game. In Proc. CSCW.
37. Siersdorfer, S., Chelaru, S., Nejdl, W., and San Pedro, J. 2010. How useful are your comments?: Analyzing and predicting YouTube comments and comment ratings. In Proc. WWW.
38. Sipos, R., Ghosh, A., and Joachims, T. 2014. Was This Review Helpful to You? It Depends Context and Voting Patterns in Online Content. In Proc. WWW.
39. Skinner, B. F. 1938. The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. Appleton-Century.
40. Tsagkias, M., Weerkamp, W., and de Rijke, M. 2009. Predicting the volume of comments on online news stories. In Proc. CIKM.
41. Tsur, O., and Rappoport, A. 2009. Revrank: A fully unsupervised algorithm for selecting the most helpful book reviews. Proc. ICWSM.
42. Wu, F., and Huberman, B. A. 2010. Opinion formation under costly expression. ACM Trans. on Intelligent Systems and Technology.
43. Yano, T., and Smith, N. A. 2010. Whats worthy of comment? Content and comment volume in political blogs. In Proc. ICWSM.
44. Yin, D., Xue, Z., Hong, L., Davison, B. D., Kontostathis, A., and Edwards, L. 2009. Detection of harassment on Web 2.0. In Proc. CAW2.0 Workshop at WWW