Detecting Spammers on Twitter by Identifying User Behavior and Tweet-Based Features

Authors

  • Dewi W. Wardani Department of Informatics, Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS), Surakarta, Indonesia
  • Yulia Wardhani Department of Informatics, Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS), Surakarta, Indonesia

Keywords:

C5.0, Spammer, Detection, Tweet-Based Features, Twitter,

Abstract

Spam is a problem in the delivery of news and communication networks. It has various forms and definitions depend on the type of the network. With millions of users across worldwide, Twitter provides a variety of news and events. However, with the ease of dissemination of news, and allowing users to discuss the stories in their status, these services also open opportunities for another kind of spam. In this study, the proposed spammer detection classifies accounts into a spammer or non-spammer by studying/identifying user behavior and tweet-based features (number of followers, following, mentions and hashtag). The results showed that our proposed approach returns better scores comparing to the result of C5.0 algorithm.

References

N. Spirin, “Mutually Reinforcing Spam Detection on Twitter and Web,” in 2010 VIII All-Russian scientific conference, pp. 1–7.

F. Benevenuto, G. Magno, T. Rodrigues, and V. Almeida, “Detecting spammers on Twitter,” in 2010 Collaboration, electronic messaging, anti-abuse and spam conference (CEAS), pp. 12–22.

P. Analytics, “Twitter study,” HYPERLINK, vol.1, no.1, pp. 1–13, 2009.

N. Pemmaraju, R. A. Mesa, N. S. Majhail, and M. A. Thompson, “The use and impact of Twitter at medical conferences: best practices and Twitter etiquette,” in 2017 Seminars in hematology, pp. 184–188.

J. Song, S. Lee, and J. Kim, “Spam filtering in twitter using senderreceiver relationship,” in 2011 Recent advances in intrusion detection, pp. 301–317.

C. Grier, K. Thomas, V. Paxson, and M. Zhang, “@spam: the underground on 140 characters or less,” in 2010 Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pp. 27–37.

I. Ernawati, “Prediksi Status Keaktifan Studi Mahasiswa dengan Algoritme C5. 0 dan K-Nearest Neighbor,” unpublished.

E. Thomas, “Data mining: Definitions and decision tree examples,” in 2004 the Association for Institutional Research and Planning Officers (AIRPO), pp. 1-13.

R. Kohavi and J. R. Quinlan, “Data mining tasks and methods: Classification: decision-tree discovery,” in 2002 Handbook of data mining and knowledge discovery, pp. 267–276.

R. Kohavi and F. Provost, “Confusion matrix,” Machine learning, vol. 30, no. 2–3, pp. 271–274, 1998.

A. H. Wang, “Detecting Spam Bots in Online Social Networking Sites: A Machine Learning Approach.,” DBSec, vol. 10, pp. 335–342, 2010.

Downloads

Published

2018-07-03

How to Cite

Wardani, D. W., & Wardhani, Y. (2018). Detecting Spammers on Twitter by Identifying User Behavior and Tweet-Based Features. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC), 10(2-4), 81–84. Retrieved from https://jtec.utem.edu.my/jtec/article/view/4321