How opinions are received by online communities: A case study on Amazon.com helpfulness votes
Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Gueorgi Kossinets, Jon Kleinberg,, Lillian Lee

TL;DR
This paper analyzes how online community members evaluate opinions, specifically Amazon reviews, revealing that perceived helpfulness depends on content and its relation to other evaluations, with cross-cultural differences observed.
Contribution
It introduces a novel framework for analyzing opinion evaluation, leveraging review plagiarism to control for text effects and distinguishing between competing sociological theories.
Findings
Helpfulness depends on review content and relation to other evaluations
Review plagiarism used to control for text effects
Cross-cultural differences in opinion evaluation behavior
Abstract
There are many on-line settings in which users publicly express opinions. A number of these offer mechanisms for other users to evaluate these opinions; a canonical example is Amazon.com, where reviews come with annotations like "26 of 32 people found the following review helpful." Opinion evaluation appears in many off-line settings as well, including market research and political campaigns. Reasoning about the evaluation of an opinion is fundamentally different from reasoning about the opinion itself: rather than asking, "What did Y think of X?", we are asking, "What did Z think of Y's opinion of X?" Here we develop a framework for analyzing and modeling opinion evaluation, using a large-scale collection of Amazon book reviews as a dataset. We find that the perceived helpfulness of a review depends not just on its content but also but also in subtle ways on how the expressed…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence · Expert finding and Q&A systems · Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
