4 ms·

I'm surprised the app stores (well, at least the play store) don't have hysteresis built in to prevent mobbing the ratings, just in general.

by xxpor 6y ago

cromka 6y ago
Why would they? They just need spam protection. If legitimate, independent users vote them down in thousands then why would an app need a protection?
- ckastner 6y ago
  What would be something positive about allowing mobbing?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ketzo 6y ago
    Maybe an app committed a sudden, devastating action against all of its users. That would be worth warning potential downloaders about, no?
    - ckastner 6y ago
      That (and the related sibling's comments) is a fair argument, but admittedly not what thought when I first pictured the term "mobbing". For anyone actually affected by Robinhood, I think leaving 1-star rating it is absolutely just. However, mobbing, to me, is when the random internet gets out its pitchforks and finds something to dogpile on, even though they might not have been affected personally.
      - happytoexplain 6y ago
        >even though they might not have been affected personally It's unrealistic to imply that people shouldn't share opinions of behavior if they weren't directly and personally affected by that behavior. You're also making a large assumption that cases you would define as "mobbing" consist of a significant portion of people unaffected.
        ckastner 6y ago
        > It's unrealistic to imply that people shouldn't share opinions of behavior if they weren't directly and personally affected by that behavior. The thing about opinions nowadays is that they are manipulated right and left. It has become absolutely trivial to whip up a mob into a frenzy. This isn't to say that any concerted movement against something one was not personally affected by is illegitimate. Clearly, one does not need to be a person of color to support BLM. My question regarding the mobbing prevention was in the spirit of the first form.
      - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
        > For anyone actually affected by Robinhood, I think leaving 1-star rating it is absolutely just. Given the claims that (various high percentages above 50%) of RH users had one of these meme stocks, that should still drive the rating to 1-star. Especially if you also count everyone as "affected" who bought through another broker and who saw those shares plummet once RH destroyed retail "investor" (read: gambler) demand.
      - ziftface 6y ago
        I believe half of Robinhood customers own GME, so it isn't at all unreasonable for all of those reviews to be disgruntled users.
  - kstrauser 6y ago
    In certain cases, it's deserved and appropriate. If an app is scammy and the majority of its users believes it's a bad app, it should have its rating dropped.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    It provides a more timely signal about an app's rating. In its absence, you'd have the Amazon effect -- accumulate five star volume, tank / exploit the product, coast as your average is very slowly dragged down.
  - moolcool 6y ago
    Literally this case
  - dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
    Mobbing companies is completely fine and called boycotting. RH fucked up, now they must pay the price.
  - swirepe 6y ago
    When it's positive, it's called "trending"
  - ttt0 6y ago
    I don't know if that's a positive, but companies like Google often cave to the mob and the press demanding deplatforming of certain individuals. If they remove the ratings then that will just prove, once again, what their allegiances are. Except now a lot of people are watching really closely.
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    I consider review bombing a legitimate form of boycott. "BOYCOTT, the refusal and incitement to refusal to have commercial or social dealings with any one on whom it is wished to bring pressure."
    - ckastner 6y ago
      That is an interesting argument. My gut disagrees but purely rationally, I can't find any fault with it. This is something I will be pondering.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    It's strange that you're ignoring the fact that if an app does something bad that affects many users, those many users will, reasonably, review the app poorly. You're implying that all sudden influxes of bad reviews are somehow illegitimate, which is a confusing position.
- remram 6y ago
  Steam (video game store) has separate "reviews" and "recent reviews" summaries, so you will see something like "reviews: mostly positive, recent reviews: overwhelmingly negative". It is often informative, as updates can make a good game unplayable, riddle it with microtransaction, or servers can go offline.
  - Daniel_sk 6y ago
    Google Play also prioritizes the recent reviews, they have much more weight on the overall ranking.
  - tikhonj 6y ago
    It also really helps in the opposite direction. Games that had release issues but fixed most of them have mediocre overall reviews but positive recent reviews, and I've found that's a pretty good sign that a game is worth trying. Without that separation, it would be much harder for the game to get over its rocky launch.
    - nonbirithm 6y ago
      If Amazon did this, then it would solve the problem of grandfathered reviews from years ago being used to promote completely different inferior products. It would have saved me hundreds of dollars worth of returns. But Amazon has no incentive to do so, because they would sell less items. Maybe with Steam the target market of gamers can direct so much more backlash towards something that doesn't work than the general audience of Amazon.
- dylan604 6y ago
  If a dev releases an update that breaks the app or fundamentally alters the behavior of the app, why should users not be allowed to offer an updated rating based on those changes. If ratings are due to some recent change, then of course it will naturally look like a swarm. Nothing nefarious about it. Any kind of artificial disruption of the users being allowed to post their review is artificially protecting the dev.
boojing 6y ago
Steam (the video game distribution platform) does "recent reviews" and "all reviews" so that you can tell if there has been a recent influx of positive or negative reviews.
dheera 6y ago
This is not mobbing the ratings. They did something bad, and they are getting bad reviews for it. The review system is working as intended.
- xxpor 6y ago
  I don't have a problem with this specific case, I'm thinking of, for example, users of 2 different apps having a war with each other and going in and leaving negative reviews for the other app.
  - bagacrap 6y ago
    well since that's a totally different scenario it's weird that you bring it up in this thread.
    - xxpor 6y ago
      It's relevant that this exposed the "vulnerability", if you want to call it that. Now everyone has a new tool to be obnoxious with.
SixDouble5321 6y ago
Considering the rating is back to normal, I'd say it was protected.

I'm surprised the app stores (well, at least the play store) don't have hysteresis built in to prevent mobbing the ratings, just in general.

by xxpor 6y ago

I'm surprised the app stores (well, at least the play store) don't have hysteresis built in to prevent mobbing the ratings, just in general.

cromka 6y ago

Why would they? They just need spam protection. If legitimate, independent users vote them down in thousands then why would an app need a protection?

ckastner 6y ago
What would be something positive about allowing mobbing?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ketzo 6y ago
  Maybe an app committed a sudden, devastating action against all of its users. That would be worth warning potential downloaders about, no?
  - ckastner 6y ago
    That (and the related sibling's comments) is a fair argument, but admittedly not what thought when I first pictured the term "mobbing". For anyone actually affected by Robinhood, I think leaving 1-star rating it is absolutely just. However, mobbing, to me, is when the random internet gets out its pitchforks and finds something to dogpile on, even though they might not have been affected personally.
    - happytoexplain 6y ago
      >even though they might not have been affected personally It's unrealistic to imply that people shouldn't share opinions of behavior if they weren't directly and personally affected by that behavior. You're also making a large assumption that cases you would define as "mobbing" consist of a significant portion of people unaffected.
      - ckastner 6y ago
        > It's unrealistic to imply that people shouldn't share opinions of behavior if they weren't directly and personally affected by that behavior. The thing about opinions nowadays is that they are manipulated right and left. It has become absolutely trivial to whip up a mob into a frenzy. This isn't to say that any concerted movement against something one was not personally affected by is illegitimate. Clearly, one does not need to be a person of color to support BLM. My question regarding the mobbing prevention was in the spirit of the first form.
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
      > For anyone actually affected by Robinhood, I think leaving 1-star rating it is absolutely just. Given the claims that (various high percentages above 50%) of RH users had one of these meme stocks, that should still drive the rating to 1-star. Especially if you also count everyone as "affected" who bought through another broker and who saw those shares plummet once RH destroyed retail "investor" (read: gambler) demand.
    - ziftface 6y ago
      I believe half of Robinhood customers own GME, so it isn't at all unreasonable for all of those reviews to be disgruntled users.
- kstrauser 6y ago
  In certain cases, it's deserved and appropriate. If an app is scammy and the majority of its users believes it's a bad app, it should have its rating dropped.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  It provides a more timely signal about an app's rating. In its absence, you'd have the Amazon effect -- accumulate five star volume, tank / exploit the product, coast as your average is very slowly dragged down.
- moolcool 6y ago
  Literally this case
- dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
  Mobbing companies is completely fine and called boycotting. RH fucked up, now they must pay the price.
- swirepe 6y ago
  When it's positive, it's called "trending"
- ttt0 6y ago
  I don't know if that's a positive, but companies like Google often cave to the mob and the press demanding deplatforming of certain individuals. If they remove the ratings then that will just prove, once again, what their allegiances are. Except now a lot of people are watching really closely.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  I consider review bombing a legitimate form of boycott. "BOYCOTT, the refusal and incitement to refusal to have commercial or social dealings with any one on whom it is wished to bring pressure."
  - ckastner 6y ago
    That is an interesting argument. My gut disagrees but purely rationally, I can't find any fault with it. This is something I will be pondering.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  It's strange that you're ignoring the fact that if an app does something bad that affects many users, those many users will, reasonably, review the app poorly. You're implying that all sudden influxes of bad reviews are somehow illegitimate, which is a confusing position.
remram 6y ago
Steam (video game store) has separate "reviews" and "recent reviews" summaries, so you will see something like "reviews: mostly positive, recent reviews: overwhelmingly negative". It is often informative, as updates can make a good game unplayable, riddle it with microtransaction, or servers can go offline.
- Daniel_sk 6y ago
  Google Play also prioritizes the recent reviews, they have much more weight on the overall ranking.
- tikhonj 6y ago
  It also really helps in the opposite direction. Games that had release issues but fixed most of them have mediocre overall reviews but positive recent reviews, and I've found that's a pretty good sign that a game is worth trying. Without that separation, it would be much harder for the game to get over its rocky launch.
  - nonbirithm 6y ago
    If Amazon did this, then it would solve the problem of grandfathered reviews from years ago being used to promote completely different inferior products. It would have saved me hundreds of dollars worth of returns. But Amazon has no incentive to do so, because they would sell less items. Maybe with Steam the target market of gamers can direct so much more backlash towards something that doesn't work than the general audience of Amazon.
dylan604 6y ago
If a dev releases an update that breaks the app or fundamentally alters the behavior of the app, why should users not be allowed to offer an updated rating based on those changes. If ratings are due to some recent change, then of course it will naturally look like a swarm. Nothing nefarious about it. Any kind of artificial disruption of the users being allowed to post their review is artificially protecting the dev.

boojing 6y ago

Steam (the video game distribution platform) does "recent reviews" and "all reviews" so that you can tell if there has been a recent influx of positive or negative reviews.

dheera 6y ago

This is not mobbing the ratings. They did something bad, and they are getting bad reviews for it. The review system is working as intended.

xxpor 6y ago
I don't have a problem with this specific case, I'm thinking of, for example, users of 2 different apps having a war with each other and going in and leaving negative reviews for the other app.
- bagacrap 6y ago
  well since that's a totally different scenario it's weird that you bring it up in this thread.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    It's relevant that this exposed the "vulnerability", if you want to call it that. Now everyone has a new tool to be obnoxious with.

SixDouble5321 6y ago

Considering the rating is back to normal, I'd say it was protected.