4 ms·

Bad reviews on Amazon lead to faked good ones. Bad reviews on Glassdoor lead to faked good ones. Bad reviews on Yelp lead to faked good ones. Sometimes bad r

Bad reviews on Amazon lead to faked good ones. Bad reviews on Glassdoor lead to faked good ones. Bad reviews on Yelp lead to faked good ones. Sometimes bad reviews are not fair or heavily exaggerated, sometimes bad reviews are from competitors. Bad reviews cannot be removed. Sometimes, faked good reviews is the only way to bring back a balanced view. So, this seems to happen everywhere and to be the natural response of a self-regulating market. Means that we should be careful with user generated content in general, also users might have an hidden agenda. Edit: Why the downvote? I am not saying that I like this, I just tried to find an explanation for a market behavior.

pmlnr 10y ago
Another study also states that Chinese people don't trust what they read; they trust their friends', relatives', etc. opinion. This is why you don't see wandering Asian tourists - they tend to visit what they know it's going to worth is, based on, well, gossip. And sadly, I'm leaning towards this myself, finding the amazon 5* reviews more and more useless - although the same goes for most 1* reviews as well, those are mostly angry costumers with a bad luck.
- greenspot 10y ago
  Agree. One thing Amazon improved on: the rating is now based on the reviews only from verified buys. Latter ones are a bit harder to fake since you need to buy the product before your review. Not the perfect solution but already miles better than most other review systems.
- kbart 10y ago
  I've noticed that Amazon ratings/reviews are totally useless: I've seen fake items with staggering reviews and really good ones with 2-3 star rating. I tend to google reviews on other sites/blogs before buying from Amazon.
- dspillett 10y ago
  I find 3* and 4* reviews most useful generally, especially when comparing two products, if the review describes the pros/cons that go into their rating. These reviews tend to come after a little consideration instead of being a gushing "honeymoon period" reaction or a "maybe if I trash them they'll give me a full refund to try get me to take the review down" thing.
- messel 10y ago
  The issue with general reviews is that they're not tailored to our tastes, and possibly more important, our momentary whims. Better to have an option for a likeness score applied to reviewers as a filter.
lvs 10y ago
Propaganda isn't a "market behavior."
- fucking_tragedy 10y ago
  Yes, it certainly is. Another word for propaganda is advertising.
Bromskloss 10y ago
Why wait for a bad review before you write a fake, good one?
braythwayt 10y ago
> Bad reviews on Amazon lead to faked good ones. > > Bad reviews on Glassdoor lead to faked good ones. > > Bad reviews on Yelp lead to faked good ones. Where do you get the idea that bad reviews somehow cause faked good ones? If these web sites allow fake reviews, why shouldn’t we expect fake good reviews just because fake good reviews make money for vendors? This is how books work: The authors or publishers get other authors to give them good reviews that appear on the book jacket. Nobody waits around for a bad review before lining up good reviews. > Sometimes bad reviews are not fair or heavily exaggerated, sometimes bad reviews > are from competitors. Bad reviews cannot be removed. Sometimes, faked good reviews > is the only way to bring back a balanced view. There is zero value in a merchant’s self-assessment of what constitutes a “balanced” view. I don’t know what you are saying here. > So, this seems to happen everywhere and to be the natural response of a > self-regulating market. Means that we should be careful with user generated > content in general, also users might have an hidden agenda. A “market” where bad and good actors can lie without consequences is a terrible market. It is in no way representative of how markets in general work or ought to work. “Self-regulating markets” are nearly always terrible. > Edit: Why the downvote? I am not saying that I like this, I just tried to find an > explanation for a market behavior. You appear to be saying that everything is fine with markets full of fraud. I suggest to you that most of the things you describe as an explanation, most people consider deep, deep problems that will eventually render these markets useless. Try reframing your explanation as problems that need solving for these markets to thrive.
- toolz 10y ago
  Reputation based markets do well enough with little to no defined regulation. It's anonymity allowing bad actors to be overly represented that's the problem in most Internet markets. Take charities for example, they outperform welfare programs in terms of overhead efficiency because they have a name and a face in a market that cares more about reputation than profit.
  - braythwayt 10y ago
    You have provided zero evidence for either of these statements. The second is particularly problematic, as without regulation charities trend toward spending all of their revenues on overhead.
sievebrain 10y ago
> this seems to happen everywhere and to be the natural response of a self-regulating market Massive government subversion of communication channels through the injection of fake opinions is not natural and has nothing to do with markets.

pmlnr 10y ago

Another study also states that Chinese people don't trust what they read; they trust their friends', relatives', etc. opinion. This is why you don't see wandering Asian tourists - they tend to visit what they know it's going to worth is, based on, well, gossip. And sadly, I'm leaning towards this myself, finding the amazon 5* reviews more and more useless - although the same goes for most 1* reviews as well, those are mostly angry costumers with a bad luck.

greenspot 10y ago
Agree. One thing Amazon improved on: the rating is now based on the reviews only from verified buys. Latter ones are a bit harder to fake since you need to buy the product before your review. Not the perfect solution but already miles better than most other review systems.
kbart 10y ago
I've noticed that Amazon ratings/reviews are totally useless: I've seen fake items with staggering reviews and really good ones with 2-3 star rating. I tend to google reviews on other sites/blogs before buying from Amazon.
dspillett 10y ago
I find 3* and 4* reviews most useful generally, especially when comparing two products, if the review describes the pros/cons that go into their rating. These reviews tend to come after a little consideration instead of being a gushing "honeymoon period" reaction or a "maybe if I trash them they'll give me a full refund to try get me to take the review down" thing.
messel 10y ago
The issue with general reviews is that they're not tailored to our tastes, and possibly more important, our momentary whims. Better to have an option for a likeness score applied to reviewers as a filter.

lvs 10y ago

Propaganda isn't a "market behavior."

fucking_tragedy 10y ago
Yes, it certainly is. Another word for propaganda is advertising.

Bromskloss 10y ago

Why wait for a bad review before you write a fake, good one?

braythwayt 10y ago

> Bad reviews on Amazon lead to faked good ones. > > Bad reviews on Glassdoor lead to faked good ones. > > Bad reviews on Yelp lead to faked good ones. Where do you get the idea that bad reviews somehow cause faked good ones? If these web sites allow fake reviews, why shouldn’t we expect fake good reviews just because fake good reviews make money for vendors? This is how books work: The authors or publishers get other authors to give them good reviews that appear on the book jacket. Nobody waits around for a bad review before lining up good reviews. > Sometimes bad reviews are not fair or heavily exaggerated, sometimes bad reviews > are from competitors. Bad reviews cannot be removed. Sometimes, faked good reviews > is the only way to bring back a balanced view. There is zero value in a merchant’s self-assessment of what constitutes a “balanced” view. I don’t know what you are saying here. > So, this seems to happen everywhere and to be the natural response of a > self-regulating market. Means that we should be careful with user generated > content in general, also users might have an hidden agenda. A “market” where bad and good actors can lie without consequences is a terrible market. It is in no way representative of how markets in general work or ought to work. “Self-regulating markets” are nearly always terrible. > Edit: Why the downvote? I am not saying that I like this, I just tried to find an > explanation for a market behavior. You appear to be saying that everything is fine with markets full of fraud. I suggest to you that most of the things you describe as an explanation, most people consider deep, deep problems that will eventually render these markets useless. Try reframing your explanation as problems that need solving for these markets to thrive.

toolz 10y ago
Reputation based markets do well enough with little to no defined regulation. It's anonymity allowing bad actors to be overly represented that's the problem in most Internet markets. Take charities for example, they outperform welfare programs in terms of overhead efficiency because they have a name and a face in a market that cares more about reputation than profit.
- braythwayt 10y ago
  You have provided zero evidence for either of these statements. The second is particularly problematic, as without regulation charities trend toward spending all of their revenues on overhead.

sievebrain 10y ago

> this seems to happen everywhere and to be the natural response of a self-regulating market Massive government subversion of communication channels through the injection of fake opinions is not natural and has nothing to do with markets.