31–40 of 161 posts
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
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
Wish they'd just go the Steam route and only allow reviews from people who've purchased the product. Amazon has a Verified Purchase label, but still too much noise. For goodreads they'd need a different system (reputation based? helpfulness?)
Earlier 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…
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
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…
If costs were no object they could simply hire well-paid, trustworthy, professional reviewers to review every product and listing. These high quality reviews could establish their site as the gold standard, strengthening the brand (think Apple levels of brand value) and drawing even more users. But all of this could be so expensive they’d actually lose money for doing it. So they don’t.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wish they'd just go the Steam route and only allow reviews from people who've purchased the product. Amazon has a Verified Purchase label, but still too much noise. For goodreads they'd need a different system (reputation based? helpfulness?)
It's difficult for books where there's a strong culture of lending, both directly to individuals and from public libraries.
I'd rather have a much smaller set of verified reviews than a bunch of fake ones. Decreasing the quantity in this case often means improving the quality and signal to noise ratio.
I’m surprised this is a problem Amazon cannot solve.
To 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.
If a thread started for ‘best X of 2023’, I’d be pretty sure of the results.
Maybe 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…
The harder we police against fake positive reviews, the more we incentivize this sort of anticompetitive sabotage.