{"id":24895,"date":"2021-07-09T23:12:12","date_gmt":"2021-07-10T03:12:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/studentwork.prattsi.org\/infovis\/?p=24895"},"modified":"2021-07-10T15:09:02","modified_gmt":"2021-07-10T19:09:02","slug":"epinion-trust-network","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/studentwork.prattsi.org\/infovis\/visualization\/epinion-trust-network\/","title":{"rendered":"Epinion Trust Network"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Background<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Most of the products and services I purchase are based on user reviews. Finding trustworthy, unbiased reviews can be hard to find. As a result, I began to think about an individual’s ability to dictate the worth of a product or service and their power of influence on a community of buyers. When I came across a dataset, put together by M. Richardson and R. Agrawal and P. Domingos<\/a> on Stanford Network Analysis Project<\/strong> (SNAP)<\/a>, which portrays data that covers the relationships of users-to-influencers on an online platform of product and service reviews, I was eager to dive in. After looking further into the dataset, I discovered some surprising gaps and trends. The driving questions that led this whole structure network inquiry included: How significant are the network ties between influencers and buyers?<\/strong> Do communities of trust involve a one influencer-to-many buyers or many influencers-to-many buyers relationship?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Process and Tooling<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

Dataset used:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n