预测修复哪些功能的属性:应用商店挖掘的经验教训

Sherlock A. Licorish, Bastin Tony Roy Savarimuthu, Swetha Keertipati
{"title":"预测修复哪些功能的属性:应用商店挖掘的经验教训","authors":"Sherlock A. Licorish, Bastin Tony Roy Savarimuthu, Swetha Keertipati","doi":"10.1145/3084226.3084246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Requirements engineering is assessed as the most important phase of the software development process. This process is especially challenging for app developers, who tend to gather crowd-based feedback after releasing their apps. This feedback is often voluminous, posing prioritization challenges for developers identifying features to fix or add. While previous work has identified frequently mentioned features, and some effort has been dedicated towards providing various prioritization and classification techniques, these do not quite address the prioritization challenge faced by app developers given voluminous app reviews. In fact, there is also need to assess the scale of app reviews' usefulness. We use content analysis and regression to contribute towards this cause by exploring the usefulness of app reviews, and the attributes that predict which app features to fix, respectively. Our outcomes show that reviews tended to either provide information of little value (i.e., no actionable information) or highlighted problems that may directly affect the functionality of app features. For two different apps, we also observe that features that were mentioned the most (the feature frequency attribute) in lower ranked reviews provided by users had the strongest predictive power for identifying severely broken features (as perceived by a developer). However, the ordering did not match with the frequency with which reports were made by users. There were also variances in the attributes that predict which features to fix, for the reviews of different apps. Review mining and prioritization challenges remain given variances in app reviews' content and structure. These findings also point to the need to redesign app review interfaces to consider how reviews are captured.","PeriodicalId":192290,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Attributes that Predict which Features to Fix: Lessons for App Store Mining\",\"authors\":\"Sherlock A. Licorish, Bastin Tony Roy Savarimuthu, Swetha Keertipati\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3084226.3084246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Requirements engineering is assessed as the most important phase of the software development process. This process is especially challenging for app developers, who tend to gather crowd-based feedback after releasing their apps. This feedback is often voluminous, posing prioritization challenges for developers identifying features to fix or add. While previous work has identified frequently mentioned features, and some effort has been dedicated towards providing various prioritization and classification techniques, these do not quite address the prioritization challenge faced by app developers given voluminous app reviews. In fact, there is also need to assess the scale of app reviews' usefulness. We use content analysis and regression to contribute towards this cause by exploring the usefulness of app reviews, and the attributes that predict which app features to fix, respectively. Our outcomes show that reviews tended to either provide information of little value (i.e., no actionable information) or highlighted problems that may directly affect the functionality of app features. For two different apps, we also observe that features that were mentioned the most (the feature frequency attribute) in lower ranked reviews provided by users had the strongest predictive power for identifying severely broken features (as perceived by a developer). However, the ordering did not match with the frequency with which reports were made by users. There were also variances in the attributes that predict which features to fix, for the reviews of different apps. Review mining and prioritization challenges remain given variances in app reviews' content and structure. These findings also point to the need to redesign app review interfaces to consider how reviews are captured.\",\"PeriodicalId\":192290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"26\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3084226.3084246\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3084226.3084246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

摘要

需求工程被评估为软件开发过程中最重要的阶段。对于应用开发者来说,这个过程尤其具有挑战性,因为他们往往在发布应用后收集基于人群的反馈。这些反馈通常是大量的,这给开发者确定需要修复或添加的功能带来了优先级挑战。尽管之前的工作已经确定了经常被提及的功能,并致力于提供各种优先级和分类技术,但这些并不能完全解决应用开发者面临的优先级挑战,因为有大量的应用评论。事实上,我们还需要评估应用评论的有用性。我们使用内容分析和回归来探索应用评论的有用性,以及预测哪些应用功能需要修复的属性。我们的研究结果表明,评论往往要么提供价值不大的信息(即没有可操作的信息),要么突出可能直接影响应用功能功能的问题。对于两款不同的应用,我们还观察到,在用户提供的较低评价中被提及最多的功能(功能频率属性)对于识别严重损坏的功能(由开发者感知)具有最强的预测能力。然而,排序与用户报告的频率不匹配。对于不同应用程序的评论,预测需要修复哪些功能的属性也存在差异。鉴于应用评论内容和结构的差异,评论挖掘和优先级排序仍然存在挑战。这些发现还表明,需要重新设计应用评论界面,考虑如何获取评论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Attributes that Predict which Features to Fix: Lessons for App Store Mining
Requirements engineering is assessed as the most important phase of the software development process. This process is especially challenging for app developers, who tend to gather crowd-based feedback after releasing their apps. This feedback is often voluminous, posing prioritization challenges for developers identifying features to fix or add. While previous work has identified frequently mentioned features, and some effort has been dedicated towards providing various prioritization and classification techniques, these do not quite address the prioritization challenge faced by app developers given voluminous app reviews. In fact, there is also need to assess the scale of app reviews' usefulness. We use content analysis and regression to contribute towards this cause by exploring the usefulness of app reviews, and the attributes that predict which app features to fix, respectively. Our outcomes show that reviews tended to either provide information of little value (i.e., no actionable information) or highlighted problems that may directly affect the functionality of app features. For two different apps, we also observe that features that were mentioned the most (the feature frequency attribute) in lower ranked reviews provided by users had the strongest predictive power for identifying severely broken features (as perceived by a developer). However, the ordering did not match with the frequency with which reports were made by users. There were also variances in the attributes that predict which features to fix, for the reviews of different apps. Review mining and prioritization challenges remain given variances in app reviews' content and structure. These findings also point to the need to redesign app review interfaces to consider how reviews are captured.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信