Paper detail

Comment Ranking Diversification in Forum Discussions

Viewing consumption of discussion forums with hundreds or more comments depends on ranking because most users only view top-ranked comments. When comments are ranked by an ordered score (e.g. number of replies or up-votes) without adjusting for semantic similarity of near-ranked comments, top-ranked comments are more likely to emphasize the majority opinion and incur redundancy. In this paper, we propose a top K comment diversification re-ranking model using Maximal Marginal Relevance (MMR) and evaluate its impact in three categories: (1) semantic diversity, (2) inclusion of the semantics of lower-ranked comments, and (3) redundancy, within the context of a HarvardX course discussion forum. We conducted a double-blind, small-scale evaluation experiment requiring subjects to select between the top 5 comments of a diversified ranking and a baseline ranking ordered by score. For three subjects, across 100 trials, subjects selected the diversified (75% score, 25% diversification) ranking as significantly (1) more diverse, (2) more inclusive, and (3) less redundant. Within each category, inter-rater reliability showed moderate consistency, with typical Cohen-Kappa scores near 0.2. Our findings suggest that our model improves (1) diversification, (2) inclusion, and (3) redundancy, among top K ranked comments in online discussion forums.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.