↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Leveraging Position Bias to Improve Peer Recommendation

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Leveraging Position Bias to Improve Peer Recommendation
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0098914
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristina Lerman, Tad Hogg

Abstract

With the advent of social media and peer production, the amount of new online content has grown dramatically. To identify interesting items in the vast stream of new content, providers must rely on peer recommendation to aggregate opinions of their many users. Due to human cognitive biases, the presentation order strongly affects how people allocate attention to the available content. Moreover, we can manipulate attention through the presentation order of items to change the way peer recommendation works. We experimentally evaluate this effect using Amazon Mechanical Turk. We find that different policies for ordering content can steer user attention so as to improve the outcomes of peer recommendation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 2 3%
Australia 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 57 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 24%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 12 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 21 34%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 8%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 16 26%
Unknown 13 21%