How about the platforms get hefty fines in the billions for fake reviews? I’m sure Amazon would solve this problem in a day then
Fined by who, and for what? What a strange comment. Why would the government police such matters?
Goodreads asks users to help combat 'review bombing'
21–30 of 161 posts
Re: Goodreads asks users to help combat 'review bombing'
#22How about the platforms get hefty fines in the billions for fake reviews? I’m sure Amazon would solve this problem in a day then
It's not super difficult to only show reviews you are highly confident AREN'T completely fake. Instead they prioritize having as many reviews as possible - when possibly a majority of them are fake. And the cost is - the reviews are completely meaningless. All they care about is engagement - and if users have to dig through reviews manually trying to sort out signal from noise - that's engagement to them, not an awfu…
Amazon adds "verified purchaser" if the reviewer bought the book. Which means my glowing review (if I wrote one) of
https://www.amazon.com/Bill-Dave-Hewlett-Packard-Greatest/dp...
might look fake, since I borrowed it from the library.
Re: Goodreads asks users to help combat 'review bombing'
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon would solve it by removing reviews. No big loss these days, IMO.
It’s the biggest loss I could imagine. I would stop using Amazon or use a third party review site.
Reviews on Amazon are heavily gamed and you should not trust them at all. I get little business cards offering gift cards for 5 star reviews regularly. Product listings get swapped for entirely different products while the review stay.
Re: Goodreads asks users to help combat 'review bombing'
#24To me this is just one in a continue set of examples of GR's lack of care for their platform. The issues mentioned that lead to and encourage this behaviour have existed for well over a decade. Their solution is to make it a userland issue.
Name one social platform that doesn't have this issue. It's not a trivial thing to solve. I don't want to have to submit my passport to share a book review.
Re: Goodreads asks users to help combat 'review bombing'
#25Almost ready to implement the concept of showing the reviews of only well know or recognized user and not anyone 's 2¢ on any book.
Maybe some people with a good understanding and able to produce a quality criticism about a book.
We could even nickname them "critics"?
Re: Goodreads asks users to help combat 'review bombing'
#26Maybe start with showing reviews that are verified or somehow legitimate. There is a problem on both ends of inflating and bombing titles.
I personally cannot stand the former where publishing teams will buy or fake mass amounts of reviews to play into the NYT bestseller formulae.
It is fairly easy to tell an ad hominem in a "review bomb" in my experience. Usually it relates around politics or something controversial rather than the actual thing itself.
Re: Goodreads asks users to help combat 'review bombing'
#27There will always be many many assholes. In the past, time and space have insulated us from them. But now we have the internet. The assholes can see you, touch you, talk to you, even decide what you are allowed to say. This is a mark against the internet.
This is spot-on, and I upvoted it.
The Block & Mute are what makes them go away.
Re: Goodreads asks users to help combat 'review bombing'
#28If people want to look for better books, they're better off signing up for zlibrary anymore. Free books, people can review if they want, and probably real humans doing so (until bots invade tor).
I actually get great book recommendations there via "Personally recommended" when I go to fetch something new to read. Far better than anything commercial.
Re: Goodreads asks users to help combat 'review bombing'
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first part is false > Many of the books given one-star ratings were written by people of colour That is not 'specifically targeting.' Why do you have to make this about race?
The sock puppet accounts were given stereotypically of-color names, and targeted authors were disproportionately of-color. There’s pretty clear indication of bias there. > They posted a 31-page Google document containing screenshots of the activity of a number of accounts, with usernames including “Chantal B” and “Oh Se-Young”, suspected to have been created by Corrain. > “There’s something extra despicable about usi…
> The sock puppet accounts were given stereotypically of-color names, and targeted authors were disproportionately of-color. There’s pretty clear indication of bias there.
AIUI, authors in the subgenre are disproportionately non-white. If that's the case, it would be expected for those targeted to be similarly non-white.
None of this is a defense of the offender: she's definitely a big jerk. But it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to make every freakin' issue about race.
Re: Goodreads asks users to help combat 'review bombing'
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first part is false > Many of the books given one-star ratings were written by people of colour That is not 'specifically targeting.' Why do you have to make this about race?
The sock puppet accounts were given stereotypically of-color names, and targeted authors were disproportionately of-color. There’s pretty clear indication of bias there. > They posted a 31-page Google document containing screenshots of the activity of a number of accounts, with usernames including “Chantal B” and “Oh Se-Young”, suspected to have been created by Corrain. > “There’s something extra despicable about usi…
Is "Chantal" a stereotypical POC name in your opinion? News to me.
You have a lot more confidence on a bunch of people doing OSS "research" than I do. The quote itself says "suspected". I would go as far as to say that believing this was racially motivated (rather than just a scummy move) based on this "evidence" is weird, but not surprising.