4 ms·

If I think an app deserves three stars, then I should give it a three star review, even if it currently has four stars. If I say "well, this deserves three sta

If I think an app deserves three stars, then I should give it a three star review, even if it currently has four stars. If I say "well, this deserves three stars, so I'll give it a one-star review so as to pull the average closer to three" then I'm aiming to manipulate its rating, rather than rating it. Note: I'm only guessing at Google's thought process here at the distinction between reviews and manipulation, and guessing at their detection algorithm; I'm not myself suggesting or implying that one-star reviewers are always engaging in manipulation. Of course you could honestly think an app deserves one star. The difference is unknowable to an outside observer. Only you can really know whether you're being honest, but that won't stop Google from assuming the worst.

gnicholas 6y ago
True, but it seems that most of the current reviewers think that it should have 1 star, so giving 1 star reviews isn't an example of this kind of manipulation.
- jbay808 6y ago
  I agree that that's what happened here, but maybe Google didn't think so, or automatically assumes that the above is typically the scenario where one-star reviews are given. Such reviews will naturally be at one end of the spectrum or the other - either one star or five stars, so as to maximize your voting power. So they might detect it in the case of reviews being bimodally distributed. I'd expect that two star reviews should always be treated as honest, so I'd recommend that as a review floor to prevent getting accused of manipulation and deleted.
  - gnicholas 6y ago
    I think reviews are naturally bimodally distributed because people are most likely to take the time to review a business when it is either amazing or horrible. I would speculate that this is the reason that Yelp created its Elite program — to incentivize people to write tons of reviews, including for places that were neither amazing nor horrible. This gives Yelp the crucial middle ground reviews that as you say are more likely to be accurate than just the highs and lows.
    - jbay808 6y ago
      Yes, I agree. They are naturally bimodally distributed, but I'd expect Google is arrogant enough to think that they can tell the difference between an honest and manipulative review using such statistics anyway. They obviously can't, and that's why people are outraged.
    - skeeter2020 6y ago
      This is why NetFlix switched to thumbs up/down, and the reviews are just as useless as before but more explicit in their useless-ness. Funny that Steam does this too, but I find their reviews quite useful and accurate. Maybe because you rationalize your review and then give it an overall UP/DOWN, vs all these other approaches that ONLY give you the GO/NO-GO signaling...
newfeatureok 6y ago
Who makes that distinction?
bogwog 6y ago
It's not like people actually take the time to determine exactly how many stars is considered fair. I believe that if this rating system were replaced with a binary vote, like thumbs up/thumbs down, Google would've still removed the thousands of votes. I understand the argument for removal, since Robinhood likely had no choice but to stop the trading. Ratings are meant to inform consumer choice, so a brigade of downvotes due to some recent controversy/memery is more likely to hurt consumer choice since it reduces the amount of information available. It means that one detail is drowning out all of the others, and regardless of whether a new customer would care about that detail, the fact is that it's the only one they'll be able to base their decision on while those votes stay up. But on the other hand, app ratings are one of the very few powers consumers have to affect change in companies they do business with. Brigading the rating system (which has the effect of turning away new customers) is no different than bad word-of-mouth, where angry customers go out of their way to prevent others from doing business with the company that screwed them over. Even if a disgruntled customer goes a bit too far with hyperbole, that's their right. And it's a good thing that those things are possible, because it forces companies to always stay on their toes and think twice before doing something to hurt consumers. It's the question of whether a consumer should have to "suck it up" when a company screws them over, or whether a company, whose full-time job it is to provide a particular service, should be held to a higher standard and be hurt when they provide bad service. IMO, Google really should have not gotten involved here. This is an issue between Robinhood and its customers, whether or not you think what Robinhood did was fair. Google, a company being investigated for anti-competitive practices, just took another anti-consumer action.
PKop 6y ago
What if it deserves 1 star? You'll then tell me it deserves 3 stars and erase my rating right? Why is it a controversy that an app that doesn't let you buy stocks when it hurts insider hedge funds gets rated a derservingly minimal 1 star?
- jbay808 6y ago
  I'm not Google, and I agree that obviously they made the wrong call here. I'm just showing that there is a distinction between a review and an attempt at manipluating the score, even if proving it requires insight into the heart of the reviewer. Google doesn't have that insight, but they are pretending they can guess. As I suggested in a sibling post, a two-star review should be immune to this accusation, so if I were you I'd use a strategy of "two stars is the new one star".

gnicholas 6y ago

True, but it seems that most of the current reviewers think that it should have 1 star, so giving 1 star reviews isn't an example of this kind of manipulation.

jbay808 6y ago
I agree that that's what happened here, but maybe Google didn't think so, or automatically assumes that the above is typically the scenario where one-star reviews are given. Such reviews will naturally be at one end of the spectrum or the other - either one star or five stars, so as to maximize your voting power. So they might detect it in the case of reviews being bimodally distributed. I'd expect that two star reviews should always be treated as honest, so I'd recommend that as a review floor to prevent getting accused of manipulation and deleted.
- gnicholas 6y ago
  I think reviews are naturally bimodally distributed because people are most likely to take the time to review a business when it is either amazing or horrible. I would speculate that this is the reason that Yelp created its Elite program — to incentivize people to write tons of reviews, including for places that were neither amazing nor horrible. This gives Yelp the crucial middle ground reviews that as you say are more likely to be accurate than just the highs and lows.
  - jbay808 6y ago
    Yes, I agree. They are naturally bimodally distributed, but I'd expect Google is arrogant enough to think that they can tell the difference between an honest and manipulative review using such statistics anyway. They obviously can't, and that's why people are outraged.
  - skeeter2020 6y ago
    This is why NetFlix switched to thumbs up/down, and the reviews are just as useless as before but more explicit in their useless-ness. Funny that Steam does this too, but I find their reviews quite useful and accurate. Maybe because you rationalize your review and then give it an overall UP/DOWN, vs all these other approaches that ONLY give you the GO/NO-GO signaling...

newfeatureok 6y ago

Who makes that distinction?

bogwog 6y ago

It's not like people actually take the time to determine exactly how many stars is considered fair. I believe that if this rating system were replaced with a binary vote, like thumbs up/thumbs down, Google would've still removed the thousands of votes. I understand the argument for removal, since Robinhood likely had no choice but to stop the trading. Ratings are meant to inform consumer choice, so a brigade of downvotes due to some recent controversy/memery is more likely to hurt consumer choice since it reduces the amount of information available. It means that one detail is drowning out all of the others, and regardless of whether a new customer would care about that detail, the fact is that it's the only one they'll be able to base their decision on while those votes stay up. But on the other hand, app ratings are one of the very few powers consumers have to affect change in companies they do business with. Brigading the rating system (which has the effect of turning away new customers) is no different than bad word-of-mouth, where angry customers go out of their way to prevent others from doing business with the company that screwed them over. Even if a disgruntled customer goes a bit too far with hyperbole, that's their right. And it's a good thing that those things are possible, because it forces companies to always stay on their toes and think twice before doing something to hurt consumers. It's the question of whether a consumer should have to "suck it up" when a company screws them over, or whether a company, whose full-time job it is to provide a particular service, should be held to a higher standard and be hurt when they provide bad service. IMO, Google really should have not gotten involved here. This is an issue between Robinhood and its customers, whether or not you think what Robinhood did was fair. Google, a company being investigated for anti-competitive practices, just took another anti-consumer action.

PKop 6y ago

What if it deserves 1 star? You'll then tell me it deserves 3 stars and erase my rating right? Why is it a controversy that an app that doesn't let you buy stocks when it hurts insider hedge funds gets rated a derservingly minimal 1 star?

jbay808 6y ago
I'm not Google, and I agree that obviously they made the wrong call here. I'm just showing that there is a distinction between a review and an attempt at manipluating the score, even if proving it requires insight into the heart of the reviewer. Google doesn't have that insight, but they are pretending they can guess. As I suggested in a sibling post, a two-star review should be immune to this accusation, so if I were you I'd use a strategy of "two stars is the new one star".