4 ms·

I know it's "cool" to hate on EA, but assuming this isn't against any Google Play terms of service, I actually think it's a great idea for any developer. With

I know it's "cool" to hate on EA, but assuming this isn't against any Google Play terms of service, I actually think it's a great idea for any developer. With that said, it's obviously not in the end user's best interest in terms of seeing a true rating prior to download an app. It merely helps the developer to achieve higher ratings, more users as a result, and if they actually care about the feedback, then improving their product as well.

simias 13y ago
It's a clever "hack" but it's completely black hat IMO. I would definitely not encourage other devs to do the same, rather I think Google should crack down on those behaviours for the good of the users.
- ihaveajob 13y ago
  There is a number of frameworks to encourage ratings, and they range from honest requests "you've been using this app for a while, would you like to rate it now?" which Appirater does, to a number of shadier ones like the one in this post.
  - simias 13y ago
    I think it's interesting that, besides selecting who gets to vote, they ask for the rating very early in the game. I assume at this point you don't need to pay anything to progress correctly in the game, so they want you to rate it before you get to see the pay2win aspects.
- e28eta 13y ago
  My product does a similar, but not identical thing. We ask the user for feedback (not modally), and if they decide to, we ask whether they like it, neutral, or negative. This is tracked with analytics, so we have an idea what people answer. When first built, the next step was to ask everyone to send us an email with any feedback they had. After about a year and a lot of positive emails, we decided we'd ask the positive users to rate us instead. It doesn't feel black hat to me, but maybe just because we evolved to this point. I certainly do feel uncomfortable with the cynical interpretation: that we're purposefully segmenting our users to avoid bad ratings. I think what EA is doing is different from us because they're using stars, which are linked to App Store ratings for users, because it's 5 stars or nothing, and it looks more likely that they truly are trying to avoid sending detractors to rate the app. But if you squint a little, they are basically the same thing. And it isn't a pattern I want to see takeoff. So, I'm conflicted.
rplnt 13y ago
I agree, but I think it could be executed better. Much better. And without deceiving the user. For example ask how do you like our app (without even a hint that it's a Google Play rating) and then either ask user to rate the app or provide feedback, depending on whether they liked the app or not.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- ihaveajob 13y ago
  I routinely uninstall apps that do this, and give them a worst review than what they would have gotten otherwise. If they're tricking me, making it less apparent is not a plus.
  - rplnt 13y ago
    Well, they trick you in a way.. if they ask you for a review or not. But how is it different from asking only when you win a level and not when you lose? I don't see anything wrong with asking for "internal" rating and feedback as long as it does not pose as official Play rating.
    - chilldream 13y ago
      The difference in your example is that you're trying to catch the same user in the best mood and not filter some users out. People keep saying "this isn't preventing anyone from rating," but that's total nonsense. If one user can get to a rating in one click while the other has to exit your app and go hunt it down in the store, you are filtering the latter out even if your filter is not 100% effective.
rayiner 13y ago
> I actually think it's a great idea for any developer. That's short-sighted thinking. This kind of manipulation will only condition people not to trust you and destroy your brand and reputation.
codeflo 13y ago
It's what's called a "dark pattern": purposefully designing the user interface to make it hard for users to do what they want to do, and easy to do the thing you want them to do. It's cases like these that make me think there should be an ethics code for software developers.
codelap 13y ago
> I know it's "cool" to hate on EA Nice, lead with a statement designed to belittle the opposition akin to killing an argument with the term 'fanboy'. Only slightly subtler. This is a UX antipattern. If I want to leave feedback, then I'll leave feedback. If I want to rate the app, then I'll rate the app. What this is doing is facilitating 5 star reviews and taxing 1-4 star reviews with extra clicks and potential user confusion. It's anti-consumer, as negative reviews are likely filtered out. EA's repeated anti-consumer choices are why I hate EA. I couldn't care less if it was 'cool' to do.
arrrg 13y ago
It’s highly immoral, irrespective of whether or not rules are in place that disallow it. Hating someone for doing something immoral is very justified. I’m quite shocked at the warm embrace this sort of immoral behaviour seems to be getting on HN. Google has to explicitly ban such behavior, remove this app from the store and EA needs to be publicly shamed. How could anything else be acceptable?
pdpi 13y ago
There's so much wrong with your post I don't even know where to start. As a consumer, I want ratings to reflect what people actually think about the product, because that's a valuable aid for my own purchasing decisions. As a developer, I _also_ want ratings to reflect what people actually think about the product, because that means I'll be competing on the actual merits of my app, rather than how good I am at deception. What we're seeing here is good for neither consumers nor (other) developers, it's only about manipulating ratings for EA. I really can't understand how anyone would portray this as a positive thing. Hating on EA for this sort of shenanigan isn't "cool", it's having a modicum of sense.
chilldream 13y ago
> I actually think it's a great idea for any developer. > With that said, it's obviously not in the end user's best interest I think you mean, "a great idea for developers who don't mind abusing their users"
- matthuggins 13y ago
  I was more interested in the feedback aspect of it. I'm not saying it's good to deceive users though, so I should probably rephrase what I wrote.

simias 13y ago

It's a clever "hack" but it's completely black hat IMO. I would definitely not encourage other devs to do the same, rather I think Google should crack down on those behaviours for the good of the users.

ihaveajob 13y ago
There is a number of frameworks to encourage ratings, and they range from honest requests "you've been using this app for a while, would you like to rate it now?" which Appirater does, to a number of shadier ones like the one in this post.
- simias 13y ago
  I think it's interesting that, besides selecting who gets to vote, they ask for the rating very early in the game. I assume at this point you don't need to pay anything to progress correctly in the game, so they want you to rate it before you get to see the pay2win aspects.
e28eta 13y ago
My product does a similar, but not identical thing. We ask the user for feedback (not modally), and if they decide to, we ask whether they like it, neutral, or negative. This is tracked with analytics, so we have an idea what people answer. When first built, the next step was to ask everyone to send us an email with any feedback they had. After about a year and a lot of positive emails, we decided we'd ask the positive users to rate us instead. It doesn't feel black hat to me, but maybe just because we evolved to this point. I certainly do feel uncomfortable with the cynical interpretation: that we're purposefully segmenting our users to avoid bad ratings. I think what EA is doing is different from us because they're using stars, which are linked to App Store ratings for users, because it's 5 stars or nothing, and it looks more likely that they truly are trying to avoid sending detractors to rate the app. But if you squint a little, they are basically the same thing. And it isn't a pattern I want to see takeoff. So, I'm conflicted.

rplnt 13y ago

I agree, but I think it could be executed better. Much better. And without deceiving the user. For example ask how do you like our app (without even a hint that it's a Google Play rating) and then either ask user to rate the app or provide feedback, depending on whether they liked the app or not.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ihaveajob 13y ago
I routinely uninstall apps that do this, and give them a worst review than what they would have gotten otherwise. If they're tricking me, making it less apparent is not a plus.
- rplnt 13y ago
  Well, they trick you in a way.. if they ask you for a review or not. But how is it different from asking only when you win a level and not when you lose? I don't see anything wrong with asking for "internal" rating and feedback as long as it does not pose as official Play rating.
  - chilldream 13y ago
    The difference in your example is that you're trying to catch the same user in the best mood and not filter some users out. People keep saying "this isn't preventing anyone from rating," but that's total nonsense. If one user can get to a rating in one click while the other has to exit your app and go hunt it down in the store, you are filtering the latter out even if your filter is not 100% effective.

rayiner 13y ago

> I actually think it's a great idea for any developer. That's short-sighted thinking. This kind of manipulation will only condition people not to trust you and destroy your brand and reputation.

codeflo 13y ago

It's what's called a "dark pattern": purposefully designing the user interface to make it hard for users to do what they want to do, and easy to do the thing you want them to do. It's cases like these that make me think there should be an ethics code for software developers.

codelap 13y ago

> I know it's "cool" to hate on EA Nice, lead with a statement designed to belittle the opposition akin to killing an argument with the term 'fanboy'. Only slightly subtler. This is a UX antipattern. If I want to leave feedback, then I'll leave feedback. If I want to rate the app, then I'll rate the app. What this is doing is facilitating 5 star reviews and taxing 1-4 star reviews with extra clicks and potential user confusion. It's anti-consumer, as negative reviews are likely filtered out. EA's repeated anti-consumer choices are why I hate EA. I couldn't care less if it was 'cool' to do.

arrrg 13y ago

It’s highly immoral, irrespective of whether or not rules are in place that disallow it. Hating someone for doing something immoral is very justified. I’m quite shocked at the warm embrace this sort of immoral behaviour seems to be getting on HN. Google has to explicitly ban such behavior, remove this app from the store and EA needs to be publicly shamed. How could anything else be acceptable?

pdpi 13y ago

There's so much wrong with your post I don't even know where to start. As a consumer, I want ratings to reflect what people actually think about the product, because that's a valuable aid for my own purchasing decisions. As a developer, I _also_ want ratings to reflect what people actually think about the product, because that means I'll be competing on the actual merits of my app, rather than how good I am at deception. What we're seeing here is good for neither consumers nor (other) developers, it's only about manipulating ratings for EA. I really can't understand how anyone would portray this as a positive thing. Hating on EA for this sort of shenanigan isn't "cool", it's having a modicum of sense.

chilldream 13y ago

> I actually think it's a great idea for any developer. > With that said, it's obviously not in the end user's best interest I think you mean, "a great idea for developers who don't mind abusing their users"

matthuggins 13y ago
I was more interested in the feedback aspect of it. I'm not saying it's good to deceive users though, so I should probably rephrase what I wrote.