skip to main content
10.1145/2487575.2488202acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Why people hate your app: making sense of user feedback in a mobile app store

Authors Info & Claims
Published:11 August 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

User review is a crucial component of open mobile app markets such as the Google Play Store. How do we automatically summarize millions of user reviews and make sense out of them? Unfortunately, beyond simple summaries such as histograms of user ratings, there are few analytic tools that can provide insights into user reviews. In this paper, we propose Wiscom, a system that can analyze tens of millions user ratings and comments in mobile app markets at three different levels of detail. Our system is able to (a) discover inconsistencies in reviews; (b) identify reasons why users like or dislike a given app, and provide an interactive, zoomable view of how users' reviews evolve over time; and (c) provide valuable insights into the entire app market, identifying users' major concerns and preferences of different types of apps. Results using our techniques are reported on a 32GB dataset consisting of over 13 million user reviews of 171,493 Android apps in the Google Play Store. We discuss how the techniques presented herein can be deployed to help a mobile app market operator such as Google as well as individual app developers and end-users.

References

  1. Google play has 700,000 apps, tying apple's app store, http://news.yahoo.com/google-play-700-000-apps-tying-apples-app-172110918.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Most popular android market categories, http://www.appbrain.com/stats/android-market-app-categories.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. An open-source api for the android market, http://code.google.com/p/android-market-api/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. N. Archak, A. Ghose, and P. G. Ipeirotis. Deriving the pricing power of product features by mining consumer reviews. Management Science, 57(8):1485--1509, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. D. M. Blei and J. D. Lafferty. Dynamic topic models. In ICML, pages 113--120, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. M. Blei, A. Y. Ng, and M. I. Jordan. Latent dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 3:993--1022, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. V. Chahuneau, K. Gimpel, B. R. Routledge, L. Scherlis, and N. A. Smith. Word salad: Relating food prices and descriptions. In EMNLP-CoNLL, pages 1357--1367, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. X. Ding, B. Liu, and P. S. Yu. A holistic lexicon-based approach to opinion mining. In WSDM, pages 231--240, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. Frank, B. Dong, A. P. Felt, and D. Song. Mining permission request patterns from android and facebook applications. ICDM, 0:870--875, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. H. Friedman, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software, 33(1):1--22, 2 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. A. Ghose and P. Ipeirotis. Estimating the helpfulness and economic impact of product reviews: Mining text and reviewer characteristics. TKDE, 23(10):1498--1512, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. L. Hong and B. D. Davison. Empirical study of topic modeling in twitter. In SOMA, pages 80--88, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. Hu and B. Liu. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In KDD, pages 168--177, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. N. Jindal and B. Liu. Opinion spam and analysis. In WSDM, pages 219--230, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. Joshi, D. Das, K. Gimpel, and N. A. Smith. Movie reviews and revenues: an experiment in text regression. In HLT, pages 293--296, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. F. Li, M. Huang, Y. Yang, and X. Zhu. Learning to identify review spam. In IJCAI, pages 2488--2493, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. C. Lin, Y. He, C. Pedrinaci, and J. Domingue. Feature lda: A supervised topic model for automatic detection of web api documentations from the web. In ISWC, pages 328--343. 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. D. M. Mimno and A. McCallum. Topic models conditioned on arbitrary features with dirichlet-multinomial regression. In UAI, pages 411--418, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. A. Mukherjee and B. Liu. Modeling review comments. In ACL, pages 320--329, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. Mukherjee, B. Liu, and N. Glance. Spotting fake reviewer groups in consumer reviews. In WWW, pages 191--200, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. G. Wang, S. Xie, B. Liu, and P. Yu. Review graph based online store review spammer detection. In ICDM, pages 1242--1247, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. S. Xie, G. Wang, S. Lin, and P. S. Yu. Review spam detection via temporal pattern discovery. In KDD, pages 823--831, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Why people hate your app: making sense of user feedback in a mobile app store

    Recommendations

    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
      KDD '13: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
      August 2013
      1534 pages
      ISBN:9781450321747
      DOI:10.1145/2487575

      Copyright © 2013 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: 11 August 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      KDD '13 Paper Acceptance Rate125of726submissions,17%Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

      Upcoming Conference

      KDD '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader