## 4 Results and Discussion
### Results and Discussions of Attribute Bidirectional Performance
#### 4.3.1 Results of Attribute Bidirectional Performance
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Value**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Location**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Service**} \\ \hline
**Sub-Attributes** & **Sentiment Values** & **Sub-Attributes** & **Sentiment Values** & **Sub-Attributes** & **Sentiment Values** \\ \hline price & \(-3459.05\) & hotel & \(-24,\!483.27\) & service & \(-14,\!546.04\) \\ money & \(-2399.80\) & location & \(-5800.25\) & staff & \(-8881.41\) \\ value & \(-1547.67\) & London & \(-3815.88\) & experience & \(-3077.38\) \\ overall & \(-1298.75\) & great & \(-3269.14\) & food & \(-2274.30\) \\ quality & \(-1208.69\) & place & \(-2614.52\) & quality & \(-1240.45\) \\ rate & \(-1145.92\) & overall & \(-1386.27\) & excellent & \(-708.58\) \\ cheap & \(-861.07\) & close & \(-1289.30\) & deliver & \(-629.82\) \\ deal & \(-662.34\) & near & \(-720.90\) & attention & \(-493.67\) \\ opinion & \(-291.08\) & locate & \(-560.99\) & attentive & \(-261.83\) \\ discount & \(-265.94\) & station & \(-509.16\) & exceptional & \(-141.31\) \\ compare & \(-265.43\) & central & \(-462.92\) & superb & \(-138.37\) \\ reasonable & \(-218.69\) & tube & \(-332.92\) & cleanliness & \(-134.34\) \\ represent & \(-69.34\) & convenient & \(-303.54\) & outstanding & \(-113.61\) \\ bargain & \(-42.48\) & base & \(-302.06\) & presentation & \(-50.10\) \\ competitive & \(-27.97\) & perfect & \(-287.74\) & impecable & \(-40.52\) \\ advertised & \(-19.33\) & ideal & \(-255.15\) & cleanness & \(-15.81\) \\ disproportionate & \(-16.96\) & position & \(-198.63\) & exemplary & \(-10.32\) \\ ratio & \(-16.09\) & spot & \(-166.93\) & servicing & \(-8.97\) \\ commensurate & \(-13.71\) & distance & \(-162.97\) & middling & \(-8.62\) \\ inexpensive & \(-12.85\) & boutique &By Equations (11)-(13), the sentiment values of each attribute in hotel reviews of different star ratings are calculated. The positive, negative and overall sentiment values of each attribute are given in Table 9 according to the hotel star ratings. According to the negative sentiment values of six attributes in negative reviews, the ranking of poorly performed attributes is derived for hotels of each star rating. Hotels of three-stars, two stars and below have the same poorly performed attribute ranking, while hotels of four stars and five stars also have the same poorly performed attribute ranking. That is, \(Room<\textit{Cleanliness}<\textit{Location}<\textit{Value}<\textit{Service}< \textit{Sleep quality}\) in negative reviews of three-star, two-star and below hotels, and \(Room<\textit{Cleanliness}<\textit{Location}<\textit{Service}<\textit{Value}< \textit{Sleep quality}\) in negative reviews of four-star and five-star hotels. Similarly, according to the positive sentiment values of six attributes in positive reviews, the ranking of well-performed attributes is derived for hotels of each star rating. That is, \(\textit{Cleanliness}>\textit{Location}>\textit{Room}>\textit{Value}>\textit{ Service}>\textit{Sleep quality}\) in positive reviews of three-star, two-star and below hotels, \(\textit{Cleanliness}>\textit{Room}>\textit{Location}>\textit{Service}>\textit{Query}\) in positive reviews of four-star hotels, and \(\textit{Cleanliness}>\textit{Room}>\textit{Location}>\textit{Service}>\textit{ Sleep quality}>\textit{Value}\) in positive reviews of five-star hotels.