skip to main content
10.1145/2187836.2187894acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Multi-objective ranking of comments on web

Published:16 April 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

With the explosion of information on any topic, the need for ranking is becoming very critical. Ranking typically depends on several aspects. Products, for example, have several aspects like price, recency, rating, etc. Product ranking has to bring the "best" product which is recent and highly rated. Hence ranking has to satisfy multiple objectives. In this paper, we explore multi-objective ranking of comments using Hodge decomposition. While Hodge decomposition produces a globally consistent ranking, a globally inconsistent component is also present. We propose an active learning strategy for the reduction of this component. Finally, we develop techniques for online Hodge decomposition. We experimentally validate the ideas presented in this paper.

References

  1. D. Agarwal, B.-C. Chen, and B. Pang. Personalized recommendation of user comments via factor models. In EMNLP, July 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. K. J. Arrow. Social Choice and Individual Values. Yale University Press, 2nd edition, Sept. 1970.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. Bian, X. Li, F. Li, Z. Zheng, and H. Zha. Ranking specialization for web search: a divide-and-conquer approach by using topical ranksvm. WWW, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. B.-C. Chen, J. Guo, B. Tseng, and J. Yang. User reputation in a comment rating environment. In SIGKDD, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. Chen, F. Wang, Y. Song, and C. Zhang. Semi-supervised ranking aggregation. CIKM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. N. Dai, M. Shokouhi, and B. D. Davison. Learning to rank for freshness and relevance. SIGIR, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J. C. de Borda. Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin. Histoire de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, 1784.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Dong, Y. Chang, Z. Zheng, G. Mishne, J. Bai, R. Zhang, K. Buchner, C. Liao, and F. Diaz. Towards recency ranking in web search. In WSDM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C. Dwork, R. Kumar, M. Naor, and D. Sivakumar. Rank aggregation methods for the web. WWW, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. D. F. Gleich and L.-H. Lim. Rank aggregation via nuclear norm minimization. In KDD, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Gumbrecht. Blogs as 'Protected Space'. In WWW, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. W. W. Hager. Updating the inverse of a matrix. 1989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. C.-F. Hsu, E. Khabiri, and J. Caverlee. Ranking comments on the social web. In ICCSE, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. Hu, A. Sun, and E. P. Lim. Comments-oriented document summarization: understanding documents with readers' feedback. In SIGIR, New York, NY, USA, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. X. Jiang, L.-H. Lim, Y. Yao, and Y. Ye. Learning to rank with combinatorial hodge theory. CoRR abs/0811.1067.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. X. Jiang, L.-H. Lim, Y. Yao, and Y. Ye. Statistical ranking and combinatorial hodge theory. Math. Program., March 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Y.-T. Liu, T.-Y. Liu, T. Qin, Z.-M. Ma, and H. Li. Supervised rank aggregation. WWW, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. E. Menchen-Trevino. Blogger motivations: Power, pull, and positive feedback. Internet Research 6.0, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. G. Mishne. Blocking blog spam with language model disagreement. In AIRWeb, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. G. Mishne and N. Glance. Leave a reply: An analysis of weblog comments. In WWW Workshop on Weblogging Ecosystem: Aggregation, Analysis and Dynamics, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. A. Schuth, M. Marx, and M. de Rijke. Extracting the discussion structure in comments on news-articles. In WIDM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. S. Siersdorfer, S. Chelaru, W. Nejdl, and J. San Pedro. How useful are your comments?: analyzing and predicting youtube comments and comment ratings. WWW, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. K. M. Svore, M. Volkovs, and C. J. C. Burges. Learning to rank with multiple objective functions. In WWW, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. T. Witschge. (In)difference Online. PhD thesis, ASCoR, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Multi-objective ranking of comments on web

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      WWW '12: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web
      April 2012
      1078 pages
      ISBN:9781450312295
      DOI:10.1145/2187836

      Copyright © 2012 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 16 April 2012

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader