New Algorithm Recognizes Both Good and Bad Fake Reviews (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Researchers from the university of Sao Paolo have developed an algorithm able to identify both good and bad online reviews in the massive daily chatter of millions of peer-community posts, and in lateral mendacities at social network sites such as Google+ and Facebook reposts and 'likes'. Two of the datasets tested in the research were from Amazon, which has a vested interest in restoring the reputation of its community reviews, and has recently taken action on the matter.

Comments

Re:Moderation

[CCarrot]

Why can't we just have moderation? Most of the poor (low quality, as opposed to negative) reviews are easy to spot; knuckleheads that break things two seconds after they get it out of the package; half the things they buy are mysteriously "DOA." Moderation enables your smart customers to punish your idiot customers.

Just spotted one of these today on eham.net. A beautiful hand made band pass filter rated 4.2/5 instead of the 5/5 it deserves because — years ago — some moron used it on the wrong band for the wrong purpose and rated it 0/5.

I thought that was what the "Was this review helpful to you? YES/NO/Report Abuse" options were for?

Effective community policing needs an involved community like slashdot. Even here, where nobody's trying to sell you anything other than an opinion, the sock-puppet modding can get out of hand sometimes...