4 ms·

As if the bots wont adjust their syntax when the software becomes more comprehensive. Silly Cornell, you're up against spammers, not actual robots.

Sapient 15y ago
Lying well is actually really difficult and doesn't come easy to many people. The differenced between a review written from experience and a review written from someone's imagination may be slight, but I think there will always be markers.
Vadoff 15y ago
If you read the article, it's a system to detect fake reviews in general - there's no mention of bots or spammers at all. By looking at their methodology it's clear that it targets people who write fake reviews, not bots. Also, it's not as if every spammer in the world is aware of this software and will adjust to it accordingly. In fact, I'd say the vast majority wouldn't even be aware.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- donnyg107 15y ago
  So after any sort of sensible application of this work is employed, these people would continue to write those same fake reviews and wonder "I wonder why my reviews are being taken down and my ratings not counted!" And if it is in fact spammers spending their time designing software which writes fake reviews, not business owners trying to hype up their own companies, the spammers' wellbeing is dependent upon how well their reviews pass as real ones. If some kind of software were developed and employed by the company whose pages will host the reviews, I think the spammers would be hard pressed not to make sure their software works and discover some kind of issue quickly. Then again, this study could have been meant not to be applied practically, but intended as an academic analysis of fake reviews, posted by random individuals who love to dishonestly talk up items or companies with which they are not well acquainted. But then this is no more than a psychological analysis of a minor issue, which is interesting, but not the article I thought it was.

Sapient 15y ago

Lying well is actually really difficult and doesn't come easy to many people. The differenced between a review written from experience and a review written from someone's imagination may be slight, but I think there will always be markers.

Vadoff 15y ago

If you read the article, it's a system to detect fake reviews in general - there's no mention of bots or spammers at all. By looking at their methodology it's clear that it targets people who write fake reviews, not bots. Also, it's not as if every spammer in the world is aware of this software and will adjust to it accordingly. In fact, I'd say the vast majority wouldn't even be aware.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
donnyg107 15y ago
So after any sort of sensible application of this work is employed, these people would continue to write those same fake reviews and wonder "I wonder why my reviews are being taken down and my ratings not counted!" And if it is in fact spammers spending their time designing software which writes fake reviews, not business owners trying to hype up their own companies, the spammers' wellbeing is dependent upon how well their reviews pass as real ones. If some kind of software were developed and employed by the company whose pages will host the reviews, I think the spammers would be hard pressed not to make sure their software works and discover some kind of issue quickly. Then again, this study could have been meant not to be applied practically, but intended as an academic analysis of fake reviews, posted by random individuals who love to dishonestly talk up items or companies with which they are not well acquainted. But then this is no more than a psychological analysis of a minor issue, which is interesting, but not the article I thought it was.