I leave a lot of reviews in a popular, centralized map app, and sometimes these are 1star reviews.
For example:
Very good looking bakery had matching expensive prices and very low quality blueberry pastry. So even if that was my first visit there I was upset with this business strategy as I see it not fair and left 1star with detailed explanation.
Should I be reviewed as 1star reviewer? Would bidirectional review system disincentivise any critical feedback? I see leaving negative comments as in general positive action to improve quality of service/product, but I can imagine I'd do that less often to avoid lowering my reviewer score.
I can imagine basing my reviewer ranking on opinions of other reviewers. If others agree with my reviews my score goes higher and my reviews are shown on the top/more valuable in a weighted average.
What are your thoughts on that?
This assumes that your score as a reviewer would go down for posting a poor review.
Inherently doesn't this assume that the 1-star review was incorrect and you shouldn't have done it?
If the one star review was warranted then your score as a reviewer should go up within such a system.
So you give an entire establishment with dozens of products a one-star review because of a single item?
Again, maybe this is an infrastructure issue.
Perhaps the ability to review only the blueberry pastry should be a thing.
Obviously that review is worthless compared to someone that's been there dozens of times and has tried everything.
Just saying.
I assume owners would act in revenge on people leaving low score reviews to deter further negative comments. Owners operating within capitalistic incentive structure might give no shit if my review was correct or not. They might only care if it attracts or repel next customer. And the game goes on.
The question is who would warrant correctness of reviews? It works now somehow decentralizishly while you read more than 5-10comments, for sure there are less Karens than not-Karen :)
Reviews are a narrow case of reputation system. These are inherently biased and based on various subcjective criteria.
Mine was emotional in this case. I can only assume quality of other products, but outlook of place and prices set my expactations higher. So this is a review more about the place than this single pastry. I added information this was my first visit there. Anybody is free to take his/her own conclusions.
If you'd enter this bakery, and there would be a dogshit in the middle or rotten bread on shelf. Would that be sufficient reason for 1 star review? Even if that could be the only day when this happened?
In general I'd assume there is a similar variety of reviewers and review readers, and if there is too much Karen-comments it might be just Karen-place ;)
Congrats on your milestones!
Again this assumes that it is possible to engage in a flag-war within such a system. Why would conflicts of interest like that be allowed? There are many ways to gauge whether or not reviewers know what they are doing. If a reviewer is using a 5-star system and then only gives 1-star and 5-star reviews (which is very common) then the network already knows they are full of shit just by the way in which they interact with the system.
A good reviewer will automatically have a bell-curve distribution.
On a 5-star system a good reviewer will, on average, give a three-star rating, with 2 and 4 happening frequently while 1 and 5 should only be given out like 10% of the time or less. The entire point of a system like this is to pinpoint the conflicts of interest and eliminate subjective over-emotional reviews based on a single personal experience.
I see your point, not so sure about the bell curve here though. There is an assumption that the median average experience is equal to arithmetic average experience, which doesn't seem to be rooted in reality. The quality of service is constantly upgraded, hance prevalance of 5 star reviews, if everything is ok, there is no need to lower the score. There is a gratitude.
Owners and service providers and incentivised to provide nice experience. And on the other side of spectrum there are people.whose expectations were not met. And this is a situation when some people decide to leave a review, and only then. Does it make these groups of people full of shit? Even if they might be the same people sometimes?
The game theory here seems to be much more complex than influence of emotions on the system. Sure, some people are terrible at giving feedback, and sometimes, we all have this bad day, when one small detail can make a difference. It seems to be more than simple algorithm.
Which is exactly why a 5 option rating system isn't even appropriate within the context of the given example. Just another way we can see that the rating systems are inherently flawed to the core. For something like a restaurant review it makes way more sense to just have 3 options, as most reviewers are never going to need more precision than that.
This is also something I have talked about at length, and I even came up with a way to make different rating systems compatible with each other using odd-point rankings.. If there are an odd number of options available every ranking can be reduced down to a percentage that meshes will with the other ranking systems. The most common systems being 3-point, 5-point, and 15-point rankings. Where 3 point is pass/neutral/fail, 5 point is 5-stars or A-B-C-D-F, and 15 point is A-B-C-D-F with a +/- option. The maximum option would be 101 point scale where reviews are graded directly with the percentage itself from 0%-100%