Sorry about my imprecise wording. I wasn't intending to criticize your study, which did acknowledge potential misclassifications (and was very interesting and d

Sorry about my imprecise wording. I wasn't intending to criticize your study, which did acknowledge potential misclassifications (and was very interesting and deserves attention on its own merits). I'm criticizing MW's interpretation, which assumed that your proxy was very accurate in terms of providing the proportion of fake reviews, but went on to imply that your proxy was highly inaccurate by talking about fake but visible reviews.