In this paper, we analyse a dataset of hotel reviews. In details, we enrich the review dataset, by extracting additional features, consisting of information on the reviewers' profiles and the reviewed hotels. We argue that the enriched data can gain insights on the factors that most influence consumers when composing reviews (e.g., if the appreciation for a certain kind of hotel is tied to specific users' profiles). Thus, we apply statistical analyses to reveal if there are specific characteristics of reviewers (almost) always related to specific characteristics of hotels. Our experiments are carried out on a very large dataset, consisting of around 190k hotel reviews, collected from the Tripadvisor website.
Social media, forums, and blogs are privileged vehicles for posting and spreading online reviews. Among the goods and services that are discussed every day on the Internet, we can find those belonging to the most disparate categories, like, e.g., food, clothes, music, toys, etc. Particularly, the practice of choosing and booking preferred destinations has been greatly eased by the possibility for users to consult previous feedback about hotels and restaurants. According to comScore Media Metrix1, Tripadvisor is the world’s largest travel e-advice site, providing advices as reported by actual travellers. Tripadvisor counts more than 87 million visitors per month2.
Not only common users, but also service providers have strong
motivations to analyse the myriads of posts, tweets, and
comments available online. The latter will benefit by adjusting, e.g.,
their products lines and advertisement campaigns, while the
former by relying on previous experiences for addressing their needs
and matching their expectations. Furthermore, online reviews are
a precious source of information, e.g., to unveil implicit and/or
unexpected characteristics of the reviewers. As an example, in [
In [
In our previous work [
Since several aspects can influence the customer experience (e.g., the hotel price, or the presence of restaurants, cafe, discos in the hotel neighborhood, the connections with bus/train stations and airports, etc.), in this work we propose an automatic approach - based on association rules - to understand which factors most influence consumers’ reviews. We consider a very large dataset consisting of around 190k hotel reviews collected from Tripadvisor, enriching the dataset by extracting a series of hotel-centric and reviewer-centric features. We leverage these features to list correlations among hotel properties, reviewer’s characteristics, and the review score. The results are obtained applying association rules techniques to our dataset. Findings are both expected - such as that the hotels close to entertainment and food areas are ranked with the highest scores - and less intuitive - such as that those reviewers featuring a very low activity (measured with a lower bound in term of given reviews), considering their stay in a particular area, select - very often - hotels with a low number of transportation means in the neighbourhood.
We argue that, with our approach, sociologists and marketing experts could analyse the results of the association rules to better understand some extra reviewers’s characteristics and connections with the reviewed service. This kind of analysis paves the way for surveying a larger segment of the population than that usually interviewed through standard polls. 2
To conduct our study, we grounded it in a dataset composed of real reviews taken from the Tripadvisor3 website. In particular, our dataset contains all the reviews that can be accessed on the website between the 26th of June 2013 and the 25th of June 2014 – date of the newest extracted review – for hotels in New York, Rome, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, and Tokyo. With a straightforward approach, we were able to collect the following pieces of information for each review: • the review date, text, and numeric score; • the reviewer username, location, and triptype, being the type of trip, one among the following five categories: Family, Friends, Couple, Solo Traveler, and Businessman; • the ID of the hotel which the review refers to.
In addition to the above elements, we collected from Tripadvisor all the hotels of the considered reviews and included in our review dataset some additional data regarding the reviewed hotels. In particular, leveraging the ID of the hotel which the review refers to, we have gathered • the hotel name and full address (where full address includes the street address, the city, and the country); 3http://www.tripadvisor.com • the category of the hotel (number of stars); • the number of guest pictures for the hotel.
It is worth noting like the above lists are not exhaustive, i.e., they do not represent all the information accessible from Tripadvisor. As an example, further information available for a review are the scores assigned by reviewers to specific aspects of a hotel, like location, cleanliness, sleep quality, rooms, and service. However, for the scope of the current work, we focus on those summarised for the reader’s convenience in Table 1. We exploited such pieces of information to further expand the dataset, with enriched features, as described in the next Section 2.1.
Text Score Reviewer username Reviewer location Triptype Hotel ID
Name
Street address
City
Country
Guest pictures
We have discarded reviews by “Anonymous” users, since they
represent users of the platform http://www.daodao.com—the
Chinese version of Tripadvisor—where all the reviewers are
indifferently grouped in this single virtual username. We have further
limited our analysis on reviews whose textual part is in English,
following the language identification and analysis approach
presented in [
1 6,504 2 8,826 3 24,627 4 64,949 5 84,398 Table 2: Distribution of the given scores in the dataset 2.1
Starting from the information collected in the basic dataset, we have augmented it performing some further elaboration. In particular, we enriched the data regarding the reviewed hotel with the following features: • the popularity, defined as the number of reviews for a given hotel. While we have neither the list of actual bookings available, nor Tripadvisor requires the reviewer to show a proof to have been a guest in the hotel, this feature, when computed on a large number of reviews per hotel, could indirectly act as a quantification of the actual hotel clients; • the hotel triptype, defined as the most frequent reviewer triptype for a given hotel (whereas triptypes are Families, Friends, Couples, Solo Travelers, and Businessmen); • the geospatial coordinates (latitude and longitude); • three points of interest (POI) features, defined as the number of transportation services, restaurants, and attractions, respectively, in a range of 300 meters around the hotel.
Popularity and Hotel triptype have been computed looking at how many and which kind of reviewers have reviewed the hotel. The geospatial coordinates have been calculated with Google Places APIs4, starting from the hotel name and full address. Then, latitude and longitude, together with the parameter “ radius=300”, have been given as input to the Google Radarsearch API5 to find the number of points of interest (POI) related to transportation, food, and entertainment.
The data regarding a reviewer, instead, have been enriched
with the following features:
• the reviewers’ activity, defined as the number of reviews
they have written (under the observation period). Our
intuition is that this feature could be useful to discriminate
between frequent travelers and sporadic ones.
• the gender of the reviewer. This feature has been extracted
with the Namsor Onomastics6 machine learning tool, able
to recognise the language behind a name, thus identifying
the gender according to that language vocabulary with
high accuracy [
After cleaning the username from numbers and symbols and splitting it in two parts (where one is likely to be the name and the other one, when available, the surname), we have called the “onomastics/api/json/gendre” API. This service takes as input name and surname and returns the recognised gender. We have used regular expressions to clean the username from symbols and numbers and for splitting the username. This was possible since, in many cases, the name and surname were separated by a space, or the surname started with an uppercase letter. Some examples of username are: “Eldon S”, “MeganJones88”.
Unfortunately, for a subset of reviewers, it was not possible to derive the gender from their usernames. This happened for 9,507 reviewers (corresponding to 6% of the entire reviewers set), which wrote 12,653 reviews. Examples of usernames for which it was not possible to derive the gender are Hope-and
such 9,507 reviewers.
Hereafter, we will refer to this dataset as the basic dataset. Indeed, in the following, we will extract hotel-centric and reviewercentric features to enrich the basic set (see Section 2.1). 4https://developers.google.com/places 5https://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/place/radarsearch 6http://api.namsor.com/onomastics/api
It is worth noting that Popularity, Hotel triptype, and Activity have been calculated as the result of queries to the basic dataset, with the aim of making explicit some data that originally were implicit in the information at disposition. A story apart deserves the computation of the reviewer gender, the points of interest close to the hotel, and its geospatial coordinates. As above described, the latter have been computed relying on external data sources, namely the Google Points of Interest and the Namsor database, containing 800k names and statistical information about names in each country of the world.
Table 3 recaps the hotel-centric and reviewer-centric features we used to enrich the basic dataset. 3
Association rule mining is a well known and widely applied
methodology for discovering frequent patterns, correlations, and
causal structures in transaction and relational databases, as well
as in other information repositories [
A popular application is basket data analysis, where itemsets are transactions, representing lists of items in the consumers’ baskets. An example of transaction is: {Bread, Steak, Juice, Butter, Chips, Beer}. When several others are collected, e.g., in a large database, the methodology allows to automatically find associations like, e.g., {Bread} ⇒ {Steak} (steaks are often purchased with bread). Beside sales transactions, the basket analysis can be applied to other situations like click stream tracking, spare parts ordering and online recommendation engines - just to name a few7.
An association rule (AR) is generally defined as an implication expression of the form X ⇒ Y , where X and Y are disjoint itemsets. They represent, resp., the condition and the consequence of the rule.
The strength of an AR is commonly measured through the two metrics support and confidence . Support gives the fraction of itemsets in the dataset that contains both X and Y . Confidence says how frequently items in Y appear in itemsets that contain X . As an example, we want to known the strength of the rule {Bread} ⇒ {Steak} in a dataset with 100 transactions, corresponding to 100 consumers’ baskets. Suppose that itemset {Bread, Steak} occurs 30 times, and that itemset {Bread} occurs 40 times, than the support of the rule is equal to 13000 , while its confidence is 3400 .
As discussed in [
Lift is defined as the confidence divided by the support of the consequence: li f t (X =⇒ Y ) =
supp(X ∩ Y ) supp(X ) ∗ supp(Y ) With respect to confidence, the lift measures the importance of the association considering also the dependence from the support of the consequence.
Convinction is defined by the ratio of the frequency of itemsets that don’t contain the consequence, to the frequency of incorrect predictions: conv(X =⇒ Y ) =
1 − supp(Y ) 1 − con f (X =⇒ Y )
Both lift and conviction values ranging over the (0,1) interval mean negative dependence, values above 1 mean positive dependence, and a value of 1 means independence.
When items are also divided according to diferent classes, it is possible to force the AR analysis to return a specific class in the consequence. The obtained rule is called “class association rule" (CAR). The CAR is an implication of the form:
X =⇒ y , where X ⊆ I and y ∈ Y where I stands for the itemsets and Y for the classes. The definition of the aforementioned metrics holds also for CARs.
The a priori algorithm [
In this work, we apply the association rule mining to the hotel reviews scenario. Each itemset corresponds to a distinguished review, and it is a vector whose components are the values of the features extracted and detailed in Section 2. The same features are reported in Tables 4, 5, 6 for the reader’s convenience, together with additional information that are useful here. CARs analysis can be applied when considering also the class, that in our scenario corresponds to the review score, a discrete value with a range between 1 and 5.
To enable the application of the a priori algorithm, we have ifrst discretised those features that natively ranged over a large set of values. As an example, in Table 5, a very low label for Guest Pictures indicates a hotel with a number of pictures comprised from 0 to 11. Still in that table, a medium label for Popularity means a hotel that has been reviewed n times, where n ranges over [433, 1156]. The values in Table 6 should be read as follows: looking at the first line of the “Geo Food" part of the table, our review set contains 37,851 reviews about a hotel, which has a number of restaurants in the range [0, 37] within a radius of 300 mt. Indeed, many diferent reviews are on the same hotels, being the number of hotels reviewed equal to 4,019, see Section 2.
All the tables also report the Frequency indication, i.e., how many reviews correspond to those values for those features, with respect to the values and features in the tables (still quite obviously, the sum on the values in the Frequency column equals to the total number of reviews considered, 189,304). value solo couple family friends business unspecified
value
up to 5 reviews
6 or more
TripType
In order to find ARs and CARs, we applied the Weka
framework [
Both for the generated ARs and CARs, we then manually select the most interesting rules, among those with the highest lift and conviction. Table 7 and Table 8 report an excerpt of the results for both scenarios. 3.1
Association analysis results are reported in Table 7 and Table 8, please notice we only consider those rules that lead to a lift and conviction greater than 1. It is worth noting like |X ∩ Y |, when divided by the size of the dataset, corresponds to the support of the given rule.
We summarise the main findings, as follows. Rule r1 states that those reviewers featuring a very low activity, considering their stay in France, select - very often - hotels with a low number of transportation means in the neighbourhood. The rule holds for 19,199 reviews, over a total of 29,837 reviews, with equal premises. Rule r2 says that males visiting US prefer hotels with a high popularity. Rule r7 says that, when the hotel has low transportation means in the neighbourhood, and the number of stars for that hotel is unknown (this may corresponds to accommodation facilities like hostels), its rating is equal to 3. Rule r10 states that Japanese people staying in a 3 stars hotels rate those hotels with a score equal to 4. Rule r14 in Table 8 states that hotels close to entertainments, which are 37,998, are scored with the top score 5 the 50% of times.
This kind of study provides a general approach for a preliminary data exploration. While the explanation for certain rules is very intuitive, well-grounded justification for others is left to experts in the field. We argue that this kind of analysis corresponds to a preliminary step, useful for suggesting which extra-features could be exploitable to build an enhanced hotel recommendation system. Also, we acknowledge that the analysis is based on the available (direct or indirect) information, obtained from the Tripadvisor’s website. More detailed features could consider elements like price or number of guests. This would allow to obtain other interesting rules, which remain an exclusive prerogative of the hoteliers. 4
E-advice technology ofers a form of “electronic word-of-mouth”,
with new potential for gathering valid suggestions that guides
the consumer’s choice. Extensive and nationally representative
surveys have been carried out in the recent past, “to evaluate the
specific aspects of ratings information that afect people attitudes
toward e-commerce”. It is the case, e.g., of work in [
However, the cited literature proposes systems that
recommend a service based on the intrinsic characteristics of that
service (e.g., characteristics of the hotel and its facilities). Other
works, similar to ours, investigate if, and how, the review data
hide social and/or economic information of the reviewers. One
example is mining reviews to exploit them as a textual resource
for sociolinguistic studies at a large-scale, as done in [
The work from [
Research efort has also being spent to understand which are
the factors that let a review perceived as useful: in [
In this work we enhance the review dataset with additional
features based on characteristics of the reviewer (e.g., gender)
and the hotel (e.g., popularity and the neighbourhood). On the
contrary, work in [
We focused on hotel reviews to investigate which factors could impact the scores that reviewers assign to hotels throughout the world.First of all we have enriched review data with with novel hotel-centric and reviewer-centric features, obtained for example through linked data information available from the web, then we have applied association rule mining to focus on these features possibly motivating the classification scores.
The approach can help both consumers and providers: the former could achieve a better awareness on how to read the reviews (consumers), the latter on how to improve their services (providers). The providers also can query a very large segment of population, in an automatic way and without relying on standard interviews.
The proposed technique is also applicable to a various range of services: accomodation, car rental, food services, to cite a few. Being association rule mining parametric with respect to the itemsets in input, the approach is easily extensible to further features not considered here, such as, e.g., the service price. 6
This research is partly supported by the EU H2020 Program, grant agreement #675320 (NECS: European Network of Excellence in Cybersecurity). Funding has also been received by Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Lucca that partially finances the regional project ReviewLand. Vittoria Cozza is also supported by the Starting Grants Project DAKKAR (DAta benchmarK for Keyword-based Access and Retrieval) promoted by University of Padua, Italy and Convinction r2 r4 r6
26,505 20,926 20,4316 34,192 20,362
Lift r7 r8 r9 high ==> rating=5} {memberActivity=very low guestPics=very high geoenter=very high ==> rating=5} {star=3 geofood=very high ==> rating=4} {geoenter=very high ==> rating=5} 0.25 Fondazione Cariparo, Padua, Italy. The first author would like to thank Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio, for his helpful support.