skip to main content
10.1145/2628363.2628373acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobilehciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

ReviewCollage: a mobile interface for direct comparison using online reviews

Authors Info & Claims
Published:23 September 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Review comments posted in online websites can help the user decide a product to purchase or place to visit. They can also be useful to closely compare a couple of candidate entities. However, the user may have to read different webpages back and forth for comparison, and this is not desirable particularly when she is using a mobile device. We present ReviewCollage, a mobile interface that aggregates information about two reviewed entities in a one-page view. ReviewCollage uses attribute-value pairs, known to be effective for review text summarization, and highlights the similarities and differences between the entities. Our user study confirms that ReviewCollage can support the user to compare two entities and make a decision within a couple of minutes, at least as quickly as existing summarization interfaces. It also reveals that ReviewCollage could be most useful when two entities are very similar.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

mhci0148-file3.mp4

mp4

34.2 MB

References

  1. Baccianella, A., Esuli, A., Sebastiani, F. SentiWordNet 3.0: an enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In Proc. LREC 2010, ELRA, 2200--2204.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Beach, L. R. Broadening the definition of decision making: The role of prechoice screening of options. Psychological Science 4, 1993, 215--220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Carenini, G., Ng, R. T., Pauls, A. Interactive multimedia summaries of evaluative text. In Proc. of IUI 2006, ACM, 124--131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Carenini, G., Rizoli, L. A multimedia interface for facilitating comparisons of opinions. In Proc. of IUI 2009, ACM, 325--33 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Cer, D., Galley, M., Jurafsky, D., Manning, C. D. Phrasal: a toolkit for statistical machine translation with facilities for extraction and incorporation of arbitrary model features. In Proc. of HLT-DEMO 2010, ACL, 9--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Dave, K., Lawrence, S., Pennock, D. M. Mining the peanut gallery: opinion extraction and semantic classification of product reviews. In Proc. of WWW 2003, ACM, 519--528. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Esuli A., Sebastiani, F. SENTIWORDNET: a publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining. In Proc. of LREC 2006, ELRA, 417--422.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Fabbrizio, G. D., Gupta, N., Besana, S., Mani, P. Have2eat: a restaurant finder with review summarization for mobile phones. In Demo Volume of COLING 2010, ACL, 17--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ganesan, K. A., Sundaresan, N., Deo, H. Mining tag clouds and emoticons behind community feedback. In Proc. of WWW 2008, ACM, 1181--1182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Harrison, C. Word Spectrum: Visualizing Google's Bi-Gram Data. http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Visualizations/WordSpectrumGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Hu, M., Liu, B. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proc. KDD 2004, ACM, 168--177. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Huang, J., Etzioni, O., Zettlemoyer, L., Clark, K., Lee, C. RevMiner: an extractive interface for navigating reviews on a smartphone. In Proc. of UIST 2012, ACM, 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hubl, G., Trifts. V. Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: the effects of interactive decision aids. Marketing Science 19 (1), 2000, 4--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Kullback, S, Leibler, R. A. On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22.1, 1951, 79--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Laver, M., Benoit, K., Garry, J. Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review 97, 02 (2003), 311--331.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Lee, S. E., Son, D. K., Han, S. S. Qtag: tagging as a means of rating, opinion-expressing, sharing and visualizing. In Proc. of SIGDOC 2007, ACM, 189--195. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Lin, J. Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 37.1, 1991, 145--151. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Liu, B., Hu, M., Cheng, J. Opinion observer: analyzing and comparing opinions on the Web. In Proc. of WWW 2005, ACM, 342--351. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Liu, R., Chao, T., Plaisant, C., Shneiderman, B. ManyLists: product comparison tool using spatial layouts with animated transitions. University of Maryland Technical Report, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Monroe, B. L., Colaresi, M. P., Quinn, K. M. Fightin'words: Lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict. Political Analysis 16, 4 (2008), 372--403.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J. The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Rivadeneira, A. W., Gruen, D. M., Muller, M. J., Millen, D. R. Getting our head in the clouds: toward evaluation studies of tagclouds. In Proc. of CHI 2007, ACM, 995--998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Rrnyi, A. On measures of entropy and information. In Proc. Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, University of California Press, 1961, 547--561.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Salton, G., McGill, M. J. Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Shannon, C. E. A Mathematical Theory of Communication, Bell System Technical Journal 27, 1948, 379--423, 623--656.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. von Reischach, F., Dubach, E., Michahelles, F., Schmidt, A. An evaluation of product review modalities for mobile phones. In Proc. MobileHCI 2010, ACM, 199--208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Yatani, K., Novati, M., Trusty, A., Truong, K. N. Review spotlight: a user interface for summarizing user-generated reviews using adjective-noun word pairs. In Proc. CHI 2011, ACM, 1541--1550. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Zhang, J., Jones, N., Pu. P. A visual interface for critiquing-based recommender systems. In Proc. EC 2008, ACM, 230--239. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. ReviewCollage: a mobile interface for direct comparison using online reviews

    Recommendations

    Reviews

    Goran Trajkovski

    Social shopping is a common occurrence on Web 2.0 sites. Reviews for products and services can be found everywhere. A review of a product can be found in a myriad of places, making it hard for the consumer to quickly make up his/her mind. ReviewCollage is a mobile application that serves as an aggregator (summarization system) of reviews for a product/service in one place; the user can then make a more informed decision just by doing one search for a product. The background works are fairly complex. The product is showcased by a study of eight participants who are looking at four hotel chains and trying to decide which one best fits their needs and wishes. This app provides comparisons between two entities using review comments that are generated by other users, making the comparison possible in a few short moments. While the proof of concept is there and focuses on the algorithm for producing the reports, the authors acknowledge that there is a lot to be done on the user interface side of things, and a study of user satisfaction will then be in order. Online Computing Reviews Service

    Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

    Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

    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 Conferences
      MobileHCI '14: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices & services
      September 2014
      664 pages
      ISBN:9781450330046
      DOI:10.1145/2628363

      Copyright © 2014 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: 23 September 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      MobileHCI '14 Paper Acceptance Rate35of124submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate202of906submissions,22%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader