<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Analysis of the Information Value of User Connections for Video Recommendations in a Social Network</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Toon De Pessemier</string-name>
          <email>tdpessem@intec.ugent.be</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Simon Dooms</string-name>
          <email>sdooms@intec.ugent.be</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Joost Roelandts</string-name>
          <email>joost@netlog.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Luc Martens</string-name>
          <email>luc.martens@intec.ugent.be</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>NETLOG NV</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Emile Braunplein 18, 9000 Ghent</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="BE">Belgium</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>WiCa-IBBT-Ghent University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>G. Crommonlaan 8, 9050 Ghent</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="BE">Belgium</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>The abundance of information and the related di culty to discover interesting (video) content has complicated the selection process for end-users. Recommender systems try to assist in this content-selection process by using intelligent personalisation techniques which lter the information. However, most commonly-used recommendation algorithms, like collaborative ltering, are not optimized for social networks which contain valuable information about the user's friend connections and the structure of personal relationship networks. Therefore, this paper analyses the data set of a commercially-deployed social network and investigates the information value of user-to-user relations and video interaction behaviour in the user's friend network. The results prove that video selection in a social network is signi cantly in uenced by the consumption behaviour in the personal network of the user. This information might be incorporated as an additional knowledge source into recommender systems, thereby improving the accuracy of the video suggestions. Moreover, the size of the user's social network has a signi cant positive correlation with the popularity of the user's uploaded videos. As a result, users having a large social network, i.e. be connected to a huge number of people, act as \hubs" of information. Video content uploaded or distributed by these users has a high visibility and acceptance rate on social networks. T. De Pessemier is a Fellow of the Fund for Scienti c Research, Flanders (Belgium).</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Social network</kwd>
        <kwd>recommendation</kwd>
        <kwd>personalized video content</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Categories and Subject Descriptors</title>
      <p>H.3.3 [Information Storage and Retrieval]: Information
Search and Retrieval</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>1. INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>Fast-growing Web 2.0 sites (like YouTube, Flickr, Digg,
etc.) have an overwhelming bulk of user-generated content
available for their online consumers. Although this
exploding content o er can be seen as a way to meet the
speci c demands and expectations of users, it has complicated
the content selection process to the extent that users are
overloaded with content and risk to \get lost": though an
abundance of information is available, obtaining useful and
relevant content is often di cult. Traditional ltering tools,
like keyword-based or ltered searches, are not capable to
lter out irrelevant content or provide too much search
results. An additional ltering based on the overall popularity
(expressed by user ratings or consumption patterns) can
assist, but requires a broad basis of user feedback before it can
make reasonable suggestions. Moreover, rankings based on
the overall popularity do not consider personal preferences
and individual consumption behaviour, thereby suggesting
only the most popular content. This situation reinforces the
role of collaborative ltering tools and stimulates the
development of recommender systems that assist users in nding
the most relevant content.</p>
      <p>Besides the traditional photo- or video-sharing websites,
people tend to use social networks (like Facebook) to share
and distribute their personal pictures and videos. This
entails a convergence of user-generated content providers and
social networks, thereby collecting not only content
interaction behaviour (like rating and viewing behaviour) but also
social network data (like friend relationships). These
additional social network data might be a valuable information
source for recommenders to re ne the personal pro le of the
end-user.</p>
      <p>Therefore, this paper analyses the video interaction
behaviour of users on such a popular social network together
with the potential information value for recommender
systems. This study was based on a data set of a large social
network called Netlog.com. The remainder of this paper is
organized as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of
related work regarding recommender systems and social
networks. Section 3 gives more insight into the structure and
use of Netlog. Characteristic properties of the uploader that
might e ect the popularity of a video are analysed and
discussed in Section 4. Section 5 elaborates on the in uence
of the user's friend network on the user's selection and
interaction behaviour. Finally, we o er a brief conclusion on
our research results and point out interesting future work in
Section 6.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>RELATED WORK</title>
      <p>
        Traditionally, recommender systems have been categorized
into two main classes: content-based methods and
collaborative ltering techniques. Content-based or information
ltering methods generate recommendations by matching a
user's pro le, or other user information, to descriptive
product information [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. These techniques construct a model
of underlying user preferences from which personal
recommendations are inferred. Examples include keyword ltering
approaches and Bayesian network models [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        In contrast to content-based methods, collaborative
ltering techniques do not rely on descriptive information about
the content. These techniques are based on the assumption
that a good method to nd interesting content is to search
for other people who have similar interests, and then
recommend items that those similar users liked in the past [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ].
Early research about collaborative ltering systems has been
conducted by GroupLens [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ]. More advanced solutions like
clustering models [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ] and dependency network models [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ]
have been studied to improve the accuracy of the personal
suggestions. In this context, Sarwar et al. proposed Singular
Value Decomposition (SVD) to improve scalability of
collaborative ltering systems by dimensionality reduction [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Content-based techniques do not consider the community
knowledge [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] . In contrast, collaborative ltering tend to
fail if little information is available about the user or the
item (cold start problem), or if the user has uncommon
interests. Therefore, hybrid content-based and collaborative
recommenders have been explored to smooth out the
disadvantages of each. These hybrid combinations have been
studied in various domains like movie recommenders [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] and
online newspapers [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Last years, various studies have been conducted to
increase the accuracy of the recommendations which are
calculated by user or item similarities based on implicit and
explicit feedback. Conversely, O'Donovan and Smyth
suggest that this traditional emphasis on similarity may be
overstated [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]. They argue that additional factors, like
the trustworthiness of users and network relations, have an
important role to play in guiding recommendations. The
underlying social network of the user has an added value
to traditional feedback for user pro ling and recommender
systems. These network relations can be utilized to deduce
trust inferences, transitive associations between users that
denote the con dence of one user in another. Moreover,
trust inferences can alleviate sparsity and cold-start
problems for new users in the network [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ]. Such trust
relationships have been used by Golbeck and Hendler to personalize
the user experience of FilmTrust, a website for movie
recommendations [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. Trust took on the role of a recommender
system forming the core of an algorithm to create predictive
rating recommendations for movies. The accuracy of their
trust-based predicted ratings was found to be signi cantly
better than the accuracy of a traditional recommender
system.
      </p>
      <p>
        Halvey and Keane have studied the social interactions and
dynamics in the YouTube website [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ]. They concluded that
a large number of users do not use the facilities for social
interaction available to them in media sharing services.
However, people who do use the available tools have much a
greater tendency to form social connections. As a result,
media sharing services can also exploited user interactions
in order to aid the user experience within these services.
      </p>
      <p>
        Also Bonhard and Sasse suggest that recommender
systems can be improved by combining the bene ts of social
networking applications with the matching capabilities of
recommender systems [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. They conducted several
semistructured interviews and focus groups to elicit concepts and
priorities that are important in the decision making process
when seeking advice. While it might seem common sense
that people would consult their friends for recommendations
for movies or music, participants clearly pointed out that the
relation to the recommender alone is not su cient. In taste
domains, such as books, movies and TV-programs, people
prefer recommendations for content that is consumed (and
liked) by people they know. Nevertheless in these previous
studies, these assumptions have not been veri ed on logged
data records of an actual social network containing a large
amount of user-generated content. Therefore, we
investigated if the video interaction behaviour of users is in uenced
by the video interaction behaviour of their friends on the
social network, based on a large data set with consumption
records. Moreover, we studied the correlations between the
popularity of a video and the characteristics of the uploader
and her social network, such as her level of activity and the
size of her social network.
3.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>NETLOG</title>
      <p>The statistical analysis of this paper is based on the data
of Netlog, a youth community where users can keep in touch
with and extend their social network. Users can create their
own pro le page, upload pictures and videos, add friends
to a personal social network, nd events and play games.
This research is focussed on the user behaviour regarding
the videos and the interaction of the user's social network
friends with these videos. Users can explore the videos by
keyword-based searching, and browsing the lists of featured,
newest, most viewed, most commented and top rated videos.
Based on their personal social network on Netlog, users can
also check the videos uploaded by their friends. Figure 1
shows a screenshot of the video page on the Netlog website.</p>
      <p>The data set used for this analysis, a subset of the entire
Netlog database, contains approximately 4.3 million
registered users who have created a personal pro le on the social
network. These users have access to more than 2.8 million
videos which are available to view and interact with. The
types of interaction that are investigated in this study are
watching a video, providing a rating, posting a comment,
and tagging the video as \favourite", thereby adding it to a
personal collection of preferred videos. For each video, the
data set contains details about these di erent types of
interaction. In total, 2.2 million comments, 1.3 million ratings,
and 4.7 million favourite tags are used in the analysis. To
correlate these video interactions to the video interactions
of the user's friends, the bidirectional friend relationships
of the network are used (85.5 million relationships). This
large amount of user-to-user links emphasizes the high user
connectivity of the social network.</p>
      <p>
        Despite the Web 2.0 features in social networks and video
sharing websites to encourage active user participation, the
number of user interactions, like explicit ratings, remains
very low. E.g. on YouTube, only 54% of all videos are rated
and the aggregate ratings only account for 0.22% of the total
views. Comments, a more active form of participation,
account for mere 0.16% of total views [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. Other video-sharing
web sites have reported similar trends on relatively low user
involvements [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. In case of Netlog, this de cit of user
participation regarding videos is strengthened by the fact that
the main activity of users on a social network site is to
connect to other users and create a friend network, rather than
rating or commenting videos. As a result, only 10% of all
videos on the Netlog website are rated, 12% of the videos
received one or more comments, and 39% of the videos are
at least once tagged as favourite. This limited interaction
with videos is con rmed by Table 1, which provides some
statistics about the user participation on the Netlog
website. These data are obtained after ltering out dummy user
pro les, i.e. user pro les that are never actually used.
      </p>
      <p>
        Since recommender systems are typically based on rating
behaviour of users to create user pro les, learn user
preferences and calculate personal recommendations [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ], this
limited user participation may undermine the proper
functioning of the recommender. Traditional recommendation
algorithms are unable to produce accurate recommendations
based on merely one comment, rating, upload, or favourite
video per user. Implicit feedback, like viewing behaviour,
might be used as alternative input for the recommender,
but implies an additional uncertainty.
      </p>
      <p>Therefore, the lack of su cient explicit feedback on videos
is an additional reason to use extra information sources,
like the video interaction behaviour of friends, as input for
recommender systems. Indeed, the number of friend
relationships of a user is generally signi cantly higher than the
amount of explicit feedback originating from that user, as
indicated in Table 1. If the video interaction behaviour of the
user is correlated to the video interaction behaviour of the
user's friends, these video interactions of the user's friends
might give information about the user's video preferences.
Using this information, the input data for recommenders
might be enlarged signi cantly, thereby producing more
accurate recommendations. E.g. if an average user has 41
friends, who rated, commented or uploaded each one video,
this might be enough data for a recommender to generate
accurate recommendations for that user.
4.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>THE UPLOADER’S CHARACTERISTICS</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>CORRELATED WITH THE VIDEO’S POP</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>ULARITY</title>
      <p>Today, video sharing websites and social networks may
contain an enormous amount of video content. Some of
these uploaded videos become very popular in a very short
period of time. However, the big majority of these videos
will never reach a big mass of people. Obvious features, like
the content and the audio-visual quality, mainly determine
the popularity of online videos. Though in a social network,
additional factors may in uence the visibility of newly
uploaded videos.</p>
      <p>The in uence of the social network on the distribution of
a video is investigated by calculating the correlations
between typical characteristics of the user who uploaded the
video and the degree to which a video is \picked up" by the
community. Distinctive characteristics of the uploader are
the size of her personal social network (i.e. her number of
friends) and her level of activity on the social network (i.e.
the number of videos she has already uploaded on the social
network). The degree to which a video is visible in the social
network is measured by some general popularity
characteristics (i.e. the number of ratings and comments that the
video received by the community, the average of the
ratings that the video received, the number of times a video
is viewed, and the number of users that have marked the
video as favourite). In addition, the number of video
interactions of the uploader's friends are measured i.e. the
number of friends who rated, commented or marked the video
as favourite. Since ratings can be positive as well as
negative, the positive rating behaviour of the uploader's friends
is also considered separately. (Also comments can be
positive as well as negative, but determining the connotation of
comments requires linguistic text processing.) The
correlations between these values, as shown in Table 2, provide the
following interesting insights.</p>
      <p>The size of the uploader's social network (i.e. the number
of friends) has a signi cant positive correlation with all the
popularity measures of the uploaded video. As a result, the
videos uploaded by users with a large social network receive
in general more attention (more views, more comments, and
more favourites) and a better appreciation (more and higher
ratings) than videos uploaded by users with a small network
of friends. So a larger personal network of friends might
increase the probability that uploaded videos become
popular in the community. Indeed, videos of users who have
more friends have more possibilities to receive ratings,
comments, etc. from these rst-order relationships. This is
con</p>
      <p>rmed by the signi cant positive correlation between the
uploader's number of friends, and the number of interactions
of these friends on the uploaded video, i.e. the number of
ratings (positive and negative), positive ratings, comments
and favourite tags.</p>
      <p>The second characteristic of the uploader that was
investigated is the level of activity regarding video publishing (i.e.
the number of videos she has already uploaded on the social
network in the past). This number of uploads is negatively
correlated with the number of friends that the uploader is
linked to. In addition, the uploader's level of activity has a
signi cant negative correlation with the general popularity
of the uploaded video (as indicated in the last column of
Table 2). In other words, videos of users who occasionally</p>
      <p>Figure 1: Screenshot of the video overview page on the website of Netlog
upload a video normally receive more attention than videos
of uploaders who are very active in publishing new content.</p>
      <p>In addition, Table 2 shows a signi cant negative correlation
( 0:2) between the average rating of the uploaded video and
the number of videos that the user has already uploaded in
the past. Thus, videos originating from active uploaders
typically receive a lower appreciation from the community
than videos originating from users with a limited number of
uploaded videos. The reason for this might be a dilemma
between quantity and quality: If users choose to upload more
videos, the quality of these videos might decrease. The
correlation between the user's number of uploads and the
amount of video interactions of the uploader's friends is
negative as well. Thus, users are less inclined to select, rate, or
comment a video of a friend who constantly publishes new
videos.</p>
      <p>These ndings may be used as extra knowledge for
recommender systems to overcome the cold start problem (e.g.
if only a limited number of ratings is available for a new
video). The uploader's number of friends and number of
past uploads might help to predict the future popularity of
a newly uploaded video. Moreover, these characteristics of
the uploader might be used as an indicator for predicting the
interests and interaction behaviour of the uploader's friends,
since these are signi cantly correlated.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>5. STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF VIDEO</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>INTERACTION BEHAVIOUR</title>
      <p>To investigate the information value of social network
relations for the recommendation of (audio-visual) content,
we analysed the logging records of the user behaviour in the
data set. First, the data considering the video interactions
of each user were associated to the friend relationships of the
user and the video interactions of these friends. Next, we
investigated if video interaction behaviour of the user was
preceded by an interaction of one of her friends on the same
video.</p>
      <p>The columns of Table 3 show the four types of video
interaction behaviour that are analysed: providing a (positive or
negative) rating for a video, providing a positive rating for
a video, commenting a video, and adding the video to the
personal collection of `favourite videos'. The rows of Table 3
show the possible in uence sources which might have
triggered the user to interact with the video. The user might
have encountered the video on one of the pages with
popular videos: most rated videos, top rated videos, most
commented videos, most favourite videos or most viewed videos.
On the other hand, users might have selected a video to
watch and interact with because of a link with a friend.
This \in uence of friends" is analysed based on the video
interactions of the user's friends in the period before the user's
video interaction. Therefore, we investigated if any of the
user's friends has interacted on the same video, earlier.</p>
      <p>The numbers in the upper ve rows of Table 3 show the
fraction of interactions that was committed on videos
originating from the popular video lists. For example, the
upperleft cell shows that 2.5% of the ratings provided by end-users
evaluate a video from the \most rated" list. The bottom ve
rows of Table 3 indicate the fraction of the user's interactions
that was proceeded by an interaction of one of the user's
friends on the same video. For example, the bottom-right
cell speci es that 13.1% of the videos marked as favourite
by an end-user, were already tagged as a favourite video by
one of her friends.</p>
      <p>The upper ve rows of Table 3 show that a considerable
amount of the user's interactions (approximately 2%)
happen on the lists of popular videos, which is a very small
subset of the total set of videos (2.8 million). The bottom
ve rows of Table 3 indicate that even a greater amount of
interactions (ranging from 3% till 20%) are preceded by
interactions of the user's friends on the same video. The rst
column shows that approximately 9% of the user's ratings
of a video are preceded by a rating of a friend for that video.
Almost 13% of these rated videos received a comment from
one of these friends earlier. In addition, more than 8% of
the rated videos are uploaded by a friend of the user who
provided the rating. And almost 15% of the rated videos
are in the list of favourites of one of these friends.</p>
      <p>This resemblance between the video interaction of the user
and the video interaction of her friends is even more
remarkable for providing comments. More than 20% of the user's
comments is preceded by a comment of a friend on the same
video. Besides, many comments happen on a video that
is rated or uploaded by a friend, or on a friend's favourite
video. Finally, we witness a link between favourite videos
and interactions of friends on these videos: before a video
is tagged as a favourite, it was in many cases rated,
commented or uploaded by one of the user's friends. E.g., in
13% of the cases that a video is tagged as favourite by the
user, it was already a favourite video of one of her friends.</p>
      <p>Considering the number of videos in the data set (2.8
million), videos that experienced interaction of the user's
friends have a much higher probability to be rated,
commented or marked as favourite by the user than videos
without interaction of these friends. This user behaviour
conrms that end-users are interested in consuming content that
is popular in their personal social network. So, besides
personal preferences for the content itself, the content selection
process might be driven by \interests in friends" or
\curiosity". As a result, a user might like to have the videos that are
popular with her friends incorporated in her personal video
suggestions, thereby even further increasing the resemblance
between the user's behaviour and her friends' behaviour.
This way, media recommendations become a combination of
both content related to the user's personal interests
(according to the user's pro le) and content related to the activities
of the user's friends (according to the user's social network).</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>CONCLUSIONS</title>
      <p>Analysis of a data set of interaction behaviour in a social
network showed a signi cant positive correlation between
the user's number of friends and the popularity of the user's
uploaded videos. This correlation indicates that social
network relations increase the visibility of the user's published
content. As a result, highly-connected users may have a
signi cant in uence on the consumption behaviour of the
community and may function as \hubs" of information on
the social network: videos of highly-connected people have
a high distribution potential via many directly-connected
friends.</p>
      <p>Moreover, this study investigated if users are in uenced
by their friends and the activities of these friends, while
selecting, consuming and interacting with content. The
resemblance between the user's video interactions and the video
interactions of her friends indicates that a user is inclined to
watch and interact with a video if one of her friend did the
same earlier. This in uence of the consumption behaviour
of friends on the consumption behaviour of users may even
cause a cascade of interactions on popular videos, thereby
creating \viral videos" on a social network. Since users are
attracted by content that is popular in their personal
social network, video interactions of the user's friends may be
used as an extra information source for recommender
systems, thereby making the personal suggestions more social.</p>
      <p>In future work we are planning to actually incorporate this
extra knowledge in a video recommendation system for
social networks. This way the user experience within these
services can be improved based on the social interactions of the
users. Moreover, additional characteristics of the user that
might have an in uence on their media-related behaviour,
like age or gender, will be investigated.
7.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Bonhard</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Sasse</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Knowing me, knowing you - using pro les and social networking to improve recommender systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>BT Technology Journal</source>
          ,
          <volume>24</volume>
          :
          <fpage>84</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>98</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Breese</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Heckerman</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Kadie</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Arti cial Intelligence</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>43</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>52</fpage>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Madison</surname>
          </string-name>
          , USA,
          <year>July 1998</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Cha</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Kwak</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Rodriguez</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y.-Y.</given-names>
            <surname>Ahn</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>S. Moon.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>I tube, you tube, everybody tubes: analyzing the world's largest user generated content video system</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement, IMC '07</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>14</fpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2007</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Claypool</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Gokhale</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Miranda</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Murnikov</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Netes</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Sartin</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Combining content-based and collaborative lters in an online newspaper</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of ACM SIGIR Workshop on Recommender Systems</source>
          ,
          <year>1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Auchard</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Participation on Web 2</source>
          .0
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Sites</given-names>
            <surname>Remains</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Weak</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Available at http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews /idUSN1743638820070418,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Golbeck</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Hendler</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Filmtrust: movie recommendations using trust in web-based social networks</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Consumer Communications and Networking Conference</source>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
          <source>CCNC 2006. 3rd IEEE</source>
          , volume
          <volume>1</volume>
          , pages
          <fpage>282</fpage>
          { 286, jan.
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Good</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J. B.</given-names>
            <surname>Schafer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J. A.</given-names>
            <surname>Konstan</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Borchers</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Sarwar</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Herlocker</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>J. Riedl.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Combining collaborative ltering with personal agents for better recommendations</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Arti cial Intelligence</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>439</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>446</fpage>
          ,
          <year>1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M. J.</given-names>
            <surname>Halvey</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M. T.</given-names>
            <surname>Keane</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Exploring social dynamics in online media sharing</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW '07</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>1273</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>1274</fpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2007</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Heckerman</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D. M.</given-names>
            <surname>Chickering</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Meek</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Rounthwaite</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Kadie</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Dependency networks for inference, collaborative ltering, and data visualization</article-title>
          .
          <source>J. Mach. Learn. Res.</source>
          ,
          <volume>1</volume>
          :
          <fpage>49</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>75</fpage>
          ,
          <year>September 2001</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. J.</given-names>
            <surname>Mooney</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Roy</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Content-based book recommending using learning for text categorization</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the fth ACM conference on Digital libraries, DL '00</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>195</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>204</fpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2000</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <surname>J. O'Donovan</surname>
            and
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Smyth</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Trust in recommender systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent User Interfaces</source>
          ,
          <source>IUI '05</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>167</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>174</fpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2005</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Popescul</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L. H.</given-names>
            <surname>Ungar</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D. M.</given-names>
            <surname>Pennock</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Lawrence</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Probabilistic models for uni ed collaborative and content-based recommendation in sparse-data environments</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 17th Conference in Uncertainty in Arti cial Intelligence</source>
          ,
          <source>UAI '01</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>437</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>444</fpage>
          , San Francisco, CA, USA,
          <year>2001</year>
          . Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Resnick</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H. R.</given-names>
            <surname>Varian</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Recommender systems. Commun. ACM</source>
          ,
          <volume>40</volume>
          :
          <fpage>56</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>58</fpage>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>March</surname>
          </string-name>
          <year>1997</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B. M.</given-names>
            <surname>Sarwar</surname>
          </string-name>
          , G. Karypis,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J. A.</given-names>
            <surname>Konstan</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J. T.</given-names>
            <surname>Riedl</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Application of dimensionality reduction in recommender system - a case study</article-title>
          .
          <year>2000</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Ungar</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Foster</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Clustering Methods For Collaborative Filtering</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Workshop on Recommendation Systems</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>114</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>129</fpage>
          . AAAI Press, Menlo Park California,
          <year>1998</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Weng</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Miao</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Goh</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Z.</given-names>
            <surname>Shen</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Gay</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Trust-based agent community for collaborative recommendation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>1260</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>1262</fpage>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hakodate</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Japan, May
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>