skip to main content
10.1145/2983323.2983709acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Detecting Promotion Campaigns in Query Auto Completion

Published: 24 October 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Query Auto Completion (QAC) aims to provide possible suggestions to Web search users from the moment they start entering a query, which is thought to reduce their physical and cognitive efforts in query formulation. However, the QAC has been misused by malicious users, being transformed into a new form of promotion campaign. These malicious users attack the search engines to replace legitimate auto-completion candidate suggestions with manipulated contents. Through this way, they provide a new malicious advertising service to promote their customers' products or services in QAC. To our best knowledge, we are among the first to investigate this new type of Promotion Campaign in QAC (PCQ). Firstly, we look into the causes of PCQ based on practical commercial search query logs. We found that various queries containing certain promotion intents are submitted multiple times to search engines to promote their rankings in QAC. Secondly, an effective promotion query detection framework is proposed by promotion intent propagation on query-user bipartite graph, which takes into account the behavioral characteristics of promotion campaigns. Finally, we extend the query detection framework to promotion target detection to identify the consistent promotion target which is the inherent goal of the promotion campaign. Large-scale manual annotations on practical data set convey both the effectiveness of our proposed algorithm, and an in-depth understanding of PCQ.

References

[1]
Bhatia, S. Majumdar, D. and Mitra, P. 2011. Query suggestions in the absence of query logs. In SIGIR'11, ACM, 795--804.
[2]
Hofmann, K. Mitra, B. Radlinski, F. and Shokouhi, M. 2014. An Eye-tracking Study of User Interactions with Query Auto Completion. In CIKM'14, ACM, 549--558.
[3]
Shokouhi, M. and Radinsky, K. 2012. Time-sensitive query auto-completion. In SIGIR'12, ACM, 601--610.
[4]
Bar-Yossef, Z. and Kraus, N. 2011. Context-sensitive query auto-completion. In WWW'11, ACM, 107--116.
[5]
P. Boldi, F. Bonchi, C. Castillo, D. Donato, and S. Vigna. Query suggestions using query-flow graphs. In Proceedings of the 2009 workshop on Web Search Click Data, 56--63.
[6]
Shokouhi, M. 2013. Learning to personalize query auto-completion. In SIGIR'13, ACM, 103--112.
[7]
Cao, H. Jiang, D. Pei, J. He, Q. Liao, Z. and Chen, E. et al. 2008. Context-aware query suggestion by mining click-through and session data. In SIGKDD '08, ACM, 875--883.
[8]
Castillo, C. and Davison, B. D. 2011. Adversarial Web search. Foundations & Trends in Information Retrieval, 4, 377--486.
[9]
Ntoulas, A. Najork, M. Manasse, M. and Fetterly, D. 2006. Detecting Spam Web Pages through Content Analysis. In WWW '06, ACM.
[10]
Piskorski, J. Sydow, M. and Weiss, D. 2008. Exploring linguistic features for Web spam detection: A preliminary study. In Proceedings of the 4th Internationa Workshop on Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web (Beijing, China, April 22, 2008).
[11]
Attenberg, J. and Suel, T. 2008. Cleaning search results using term distance features. In AIRWeb '08, ACM, 21--24.
[12]
Urvoy, T. Chauveau, E. Filoche, P. and Lavergne, T. Tracking Web spam with HTML style similarities. ACM Transactions on the Web. February, 2008.
[13]
Liu, Y. Cen, R. Zhang, M. Ma, S. and Ru, L. 2008. Identifying Web spam with user behavior analysis. In AIRWeb'08, 9--16.
[14]
Krishnan, V. and Raj, R. 2006. Web Spam Detection with Anti-Trust-Rank. In AIR Web'06, 37--40.
[15]
Becchetti, L., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Leonardi, S., & Baeza-Yates, R. 2006. Using rank propagation and probabilistic counting for link-based spam detection. In Proc. of WebKDD(Vol. 6).
[16]
Lee, Kyumin, et al. 2011. Content-driven detection of campaigns in social media. In CIKM'11, ACM, 551--556.
[17]
Zhang, X. Zhu, S. and Liang, W. 2012. Detecting Spam and Promoting Campaigns in the Twitter Social Network. 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Data Mining (Vol.5, pp.1194--1199). IEEE Computer Society.
[18]
X, Li. Y, Liu. M, Zhang. S, Ma. X, Zhu. and J, Sun. 2015. Detecting Promotion Campaigns in Community Question Answering. In AAAI'15, 2348--2354.
[19]
Lakhani, R. Google Instant Search Autocomplete Manipulation, 2011. http://www.ecreativeim.com/blog/2011/03/google-instant-search-autocomplete-manipulation/
[20]
Strizhevskaya, A. Baytin, A. Galinskaya, I. & Serdyukov, P. 2012. Actualization of query suggestions using query logs. In WWW'12, ACM, 611--612.
[21]
Kharitonov, E. MacDonald, C. Serdyukov, P. and Ounis, I. 2013. User Model-based Metrics for Offline Query Suggestion Evaluation. In SIGIR '13, ACM, 633--642.
[22]
Bhatia, S., Majumdar, D., & Mitra, P. 2011. Query suggestions in the absence of query logs. In SIGIR '11, ACM, 795--804.
[23]
Liu, Y. Song, R. Chen, Y. Nie, J. Y. and Wen, J. R. 2012. Adaptive query suggestion for difficult queries. In SIGIR'12, ACM, 15--24.
[24]
Mei, Q. Zhou, D. and Church K. 2008. Query suggestion using hitting time. In CIKM'08, ACM, 469--478.
[25]
Starling, L. How to remove a word from Google autocomplete. 2014, http://searchengineland.com/using-autocomplete-hijack-local-search-results-improve-online-reputation-199568R.
[26]
Landis, J R. and Koch, G G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33.1(1977):159--174.
[27]
Jones, R. Rey, B. Madani, O. and Greiner W. Generating query substitutions. 2006. In WWW'06, ACM, 387--396.
[28]
Lazar, J. Meiselwitz, G. & Feng, J. Understanding Web credibility: a synthesis of the research literature. Foundations and Trends® in Human-Computer Interaction, 2007, 1:139-202.
[29]
Qazvinian, V. Rosengren, E. Radev, D R. et al. 2011. Rumor has it: identifying misinformation in microblogs. In EMNLP '11, 1589--1599.
[30]
Sanderson M. Test Collection Based Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems. Foundations & Trends® in Information Retrieval, 2010, 4(6):247--375

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Signed Latent Factors for Spamming Activity DetectionIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security10.1109/TIFS.2024.351657320(651-664)Online publication date: 2025
  • (2020)When Are Search Completion Suggestions Problematic?Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/34152424:CSCW2(1-25)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2020
  • (2020)Recommending Inferior Results: A General and Feature-Free Model for Spam DetectionProceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management10.1145/3340531.3411900(955-974)Online publication date: 19-Oct-2020
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
CIKM '16: Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
October 2016
2566 pages
ISBN:9781450340731
DOI:10.1145/2983323
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]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 24 October 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. promotion campaign
  2. query auto completion
  3. spam detection

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • National Key Basic Research Program
  • National Science Foundation of China

Conference

CIKM'16
Sponsor:
CIKM'16: ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
October 24 - 28, 2016
Indiana, Indianapolis, USA

Acceptance Rates

CIKM '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 160 of 701 submissions, 23%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,861 of 8,427 submissions, 22%

Upcoming Conference

CIKM '25

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)3
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 27 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Signed Latent Factors for Spamming Activity DetectionIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security10.1109/TIFS.2024.351657320(651-664)Online publication date: 2025
  • (2020)When Are Search Completion Suggestions Problematic?Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/34152424:CSCW2(1-25)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2020
  • (2020)Recommending Inferior Results: A General and Feature-Free Model for Spam DetectionProceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management10.1145/3340531.3411900(955-974)Online publication date: 19-Oct-2020
  • (2020)Query Auto-CompletionQuery Understanding for Search Engines10.1007/978-3-030-58334-7_7(145-170)Online publication date: 2-Dec-2020
  • (2019)Enhancing Content Marketing Article Detection With Graph AnalysisIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2019.29280947(94869-94881)Online publication date: 2019

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media