Beyond Bot Detection: Combating Fraudulent Online Survey Takers✱
Ziyi Zhang, Shuofei Zhu, Jaron Mink, Aiping Xiong, Linhai Song, Gang Wang
Abstract
Different techniques have been recommended to detect fraudulent responses in online surveys, but little research has been taken to systematically test the extent to which they actually work in practice. In this paper, we conduct an empirical evaluation of 22 antifraud tests in two complementary online surveys. The first survey recruits Rust programmers on public online forums and social media networks. We find that fraudulent respondents involve both bot and human characteristics. Among different anti-fraud tests, those designed based on domain knowledge are the most effective. By combining individual tests, we can achieve a detection performance as good as commercial techniques while making the results more explainable. To explore these tests under a broader context, we ran a different survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). The results show that for a generic survey without requiring users to have any domain knowledge, it is more difficult to distinguish fraudulent responses. However, a subset of tests still remain effective. CCS CONCEPTS • Security and privacy → Intrusion/anomaly detection and malware mitigation.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext f267784c-7dcd-4d2d-bee4-a0bc3339d174Cited by top-tier papers3
- Understanding fraudulence in online qualitative studies: From the researcher's perspectiveAswati Panicker, Novia Nurain, Zaidat Ibrahim, Chun-Han Ariel Wang et al.CHI 2024 · 26 citations
- Understand Users' Privacy Perception and Decision of V2X Communication in Connected Autonomous VehiclesZekun Cai, Aiping XiongUSENIX Security 2023
- Beyond the Prank: The Hidden Expertise of TSS ScambaitersSaleh Alsyefi, Anish Chand, Matthew Edwards, Phani VadrevuCCS 2026
Builds on6
- You Get Where You're Looking for: The Impact of Information Sources on Code SecurityYasemin Acar, Michael Backes, Sascha Fahl, Doowon Kim et al.S&P 2016 · 325 citations
- Good Bot, Bad Bot: Characterizing Automated Browsing ActivityXigao Li, Babak Amin Azad, Amir Rahmati, Nick NikiforakisS&P 2021 · 45 citations
- One size does not fit all: a grounded theory and online survey study of developer preferences for security warning typesAnastasia Danilova, Alena Naiakshina, Matthew SmithICSE 2020 · 24 citations
- Do you really code? Designing and Evaluating Screening Questions for Online Surveys with ProgrammersAnastasia Danilova, Alena Naiakshina, Stefan Horstmann, Matthew SmithICSE 2021 · 5 citations
- CrawlPhish: Large-scale Analysis of Client-side Cloaking Techniques in PhishingPenghui Zhang, Adam Oest, Haehyun Cho, Zhibo Sun et al.S&P 2021 · 1 citation
Related papers
- Weak Programmers Need Not Apply, LLMs Welcome! Survey Screening in the AI EraIta Ryan, Utz Roedig, Klaas-Jan StolICSE 2026
- Learning and Programming Challenges of Rust: A Mixed-Methods StudyShuofei Zhu, Ziyi Zhang, Boqin Qin, Aiping Xiong et al.ICSE 2022 · 27 citations
- How Well Do My Results Generalize? Comparing Security and Privacy Survey Results from MTurk, Web, and Telephone SamplesElissa M. Redmiles, Sean Kross, Michelle L. MazurekS&P 2019 · 222 citations
- Where to Recruit for Security Development Studies: Comparing Six Software Developer SamplesHarjot Kaur, Sabrina Amft, Daniel Votipka, Yasemin Acar et al.USENIX Security 2022
- Recruiting Participants With Programming Skills: A Comparison of Four Crowdsourcing Platforms and a CS Student Mailing ListMohammad Tahaei, Kami VanieaCHI 2022 · 45 citations
