IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0215516.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quality dimensions features for identifying high-quality user replies in text forum threads using classification methods

Author

Listed:
  • Akram Osman
  • Naomie Salim
  • Faisal Saeed

Abstract

The Text Forum Threads (TFThs) contain a large amount of Initial-Posts Replies pairs (IPR pairs) which are related to information exchange and discussion amongst the forum users with similar interests. Generally, some user replies in the discussion thread are off-topic and irrelevant. Hence, the content is of different qualities. It is important to identify the quality of the IPR pairs in a discussion thread in order to extract relevant information and helpful replies because a higher frequency of irrelevant replies in the thread could take the discussion in a different direction and the genuine users would lose interest in this discussion thread. In this study, the authors have presented an approach for identifying the high-quality user replies to the Initial-Post and use some quality dimensions features for their extraction. Moreover, crowdsourcing platforms were used for judging the quality of the replies and classified them into high-quality, low-quality or non-quality replies to the Initial-Posts. Then, the high-quality IPR pairs were extracted and identified based on their quality, and they were ranked using three classifiers i.e., Support Vector Machine, Naïve Bayes, and the Decision Trees according to their quality dimensions of relevancy, author activeness, timeliness, ease-of-understanding, politeness, and amount-of-data. In conclusion, the experimental results for the TFThs showed that the proposed approach could improve the extraction of the quality replies and identify the quality features that can be used for the Text Forum Thread Summarization.

Suggested Citation

  • Akram Osman & Naomie Salim & Faisal Saeed, 2019. "Quality dimensions features for identifying high-quality user replies in text forum threads using classification methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-26, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0215516
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215516
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215516
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215516&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0215516?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Editors The, 2008. "Content," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-2, January.
    2. Editors The, 2008. "Content," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 1-1, December.
    3. Sumit Bhatia & Prakhar Biyani & Prasenjit Mitra, 2016. "Identifying the role of individual user messages in an online discussion and its use in thread retrieval," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(2), pages 276-288, February.
    4. Editors The, 2008. "Content," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-1, July.
    5. Editors The, 2008. "Content," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-1, November.
    6. Editors The, 2007. "From the Editors," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-5, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2012. "Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 211-238, August.
    2. Jie Zhao & Jianfei Wang & Suping Fang & Peiquan Jin, 2018. "Towards Sustainable Development of Online Communities in the Big Data Era: A Study of the Causes and Possible Consequence of Voting on User Reviews," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Embiya Celik & Nuray Gedik & Güler Karaman & Turgay Demirel & Yuksel Goktas, 2014. "Mistakes encountered in manuscripts on education and their effects on journal rejections," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1837-1853, March.
    4. Louis Mesnard, 2010. "On Hochberg et al.’s “The tragedy of the reviewer commons”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 903-917, September.
    5. Mario Paolucci & Francisco Grimaldo, 2014. "Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 663-688, June.
    6. Makri, Katerina & Papadas, Karolos & Schlegelmilch, Bodo B., 2021. "Global social networking sites and global identity: A three-country study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 482-492.
    7. Lutz Bornmann & Christophe Weymuth & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2010. "A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 493-506, May.
    8. Chetty, Krish & Aneja, Urvashi & Mishra, Vidisha & Gcora, Nozibele & Josie, Jaya, 2018. "Bridging the digital divide in the G20: Skills for the new age," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 12, pages 1-20.
    9. SeungGwan Lee & DaeHo Lee, 2018. "A personalized channel recommendation and scheduling system considering both section video clips and full video clips," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-14, July.
    10. Drahomira Herrmannova & Robert M. Patton & Petr Knoth & Christopher G. Stahl, 2018. "Do citations and readership identify seminal publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 239-262, April.
    11. McAleer, M.J. & Oláh, J. & Popp, J., 2018. "Pros and Cons of the Impact Factor in a Rapidly Changing Digital World," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI2018-11, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    12. Caroline M. Hoxby, 2018. "The Productivity of US Postsecondary Institutions," NBER Chapters, in: Productivity in Higher Education, pages 31-66, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Lutz Bornmann & Markus Wolf & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2012. "Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 843-856, June.
    14. Catalina Granda & Franz Hamann, 2015. "Informality, Saving and Wealth Inequality in Colombia," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 88196, Inter-American Development Bank.
    15. Olgica Nedić & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2016. "Priority criteria in peer review of scientific articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(1), pages 15-26, April.
    16. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "Research Misconduct—Definitions, Manifestations and Extent," Publications, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-12, October.
    17. Zhan Wang, 2021. "Social media brand posts and customer engagement," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(6), pages 685-699, November.
    18. Pardeep Sud & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Evaluating altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1131-1143, February.
    19. Eloi Laurent, 2010. "Environmental justice and environmental inequalities: A European perspective," Working Papers hal-01069412, HAL.
    20. Sylvester Ngome Chisika & Chunho Yeom, 2021. "Enhancing Sustainable Management of Public Natural Forests Through Public Private Partnerships in Kenya," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0215516. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.