Resource Reviews Rules

[Anvity]

How would it work?
Resource reviews rules would be applied to the reviews, it would be almost the same as the reputation ones.

Why?
I... and other ones, think that resource reviews are like the profile reputation’s a positive reputation is something that influences in your profile, and with more positive ones than false ones, you will be more trustful than any other person, and I think that resource reviews are also something that influences in resources, even in the creator’s profile. So, that is why I am suggesting this. I think that resource review should also be controlled as I know people that offer their resource in exchange of a positive review. And it shouldn’t be a thing, because it makes people get confused about it. And will make them purchase it or not. It is not only about positive reviews, also about negative ones, some of those negative reviews are also false. And buyers can also leave a negative one because simple stuff and even without providing evidence about it. So that is what I am suggesting. More control to resource reviews and don’t be able to leave a review without evidence or false ones, you can see them simply as they are very short and... You know.

 

[Anvity]

Resource reviews are nothing like reputation, and therefore shouldn't be handled the same.
If you're imposing these limits on reviews, then the same should go for vouches on people's threads.
There's already rules dictating that reviews have to be an honest reflection of the product's content.

Back to read the suggestion. By the way I knew some resource creators would decline this suggestion.

 

[Glident]

I can understand where you're coming from, but reviews are a lot different than reputation. Reputation is the experience one has with a user, and reviews are the experience each user has with whatever product you're selling. Everyone has different opinions and different uses for the product being sold, so it is only right to let everyone have a voice in their experience with the product.

 

[Anvity]

Sorry, but all of my reviews are from actual purchasers of the plugin - I'm not one of the fake review creators *cough* TigerSetups *cough*.

I understand some moderation of reviews, however it shouldn't be handled the same as Reputation, they're different things.

I know it’s different. But you are actually misunderstanding, the name says it all. You don’t even should provide screenshots. Just a long review and by buying it (with real money). It was a comparison to make YOU ALL understand how the idea was. I couldn’t explain it then.[DOUBLEPOST=1582053107][/DOUBLEPOST]

I can understand where you're coming from, but reviews are a lot different than reputation. Reputation is the experience one has with a user, and reviews are the experience each user has with whatever product you're selling. Everyone has different opinions and different uses for the product being sold, so it is only right to let everyone have a voice in their experience with the product.

Read my previous message

 

[Glident]

I know it’s different. But you are actually misunderstanding, the name says it all. You don’t even should provide screenshots. Just a long review and by buying it (with real money). It was a comparison to make YOU ALL understand how the idea was. I couldn’t explain it then.[DOUBLEPOST=1582053107][/DOUBLEPOST]
Read my previous message

Reputation is still more impactful as it is reviewing a user as a whole, while a review is only for a single product. Reputation impacts one's career more than a review.

Edit: Also, you have to purchase the product in order to review it, whereas for reputation anyone could add to your profile which is why the rules were enforced in the first place.

 

[Annie S.]

I know it’s different. But you are actually misunderstanding, the name says it all. You don’t even should provide screenshots. Just a long review and by buying it (with real money). It was a comparison to make YOU ALL understand how the idea was. I couldn’t explain it then.[DOUBLEPOST=1582053107][/DOUBLEPOST]
Read my previous message

Hey, it seems like there's some miscommunication about exactly what you meant through this suggestion, so perhaps I could try and help make sense of it, if that's alright:

Are you saying that there's an influx of falsified/bribed reviews on resources at the moment that should be moderated? And/or are you suggesting that some form of word or detail etc requirement should be put into place to discourage falsified reviews?

 

[Harry]

I've wanted to see more structure around how we moderate resource reviews. After Justis and I discussed the topic a short while ago, we settled on providing members of the site with more information regarding how the review system should be used, and what would constitute an abuse of it. We thought this information should be expressed via a dedicated wiki page, which would certainly make moderation for us far easier, and less subjective. Potentially adding a new rule preventing any abuse of the system would result in us being able to punish persistent violators.

We already require evidence to be provided if the resource author reports the review for being misleading or false. This is in line with how vouches on product threads are moderated, and as I liken the review system more to vouches than our reputation system, I don't see this being an issue or something which should be altered. Requiring evidence when posting a review just seems unnecessary, and cluttersome.

I think that resource review should also be controlled as I know people that offer their resource in exchange of a positive review.

Authors are allowed to provide someone with access to their product in return for a resource review - it is their product at the end of the day, they can do what they want with it. No different to providing someone with a vouch copy for a product within a marketplace thread. They cannot, however, require that the review be positive in any way. If the review was misleading or false, then that's a different story, and should be reported.

 

[Mick]

I've wanted to see more structure around how we moderate resource reviews. After Justis and I discussed the topic a short while ago, we settled on providing members of the site with more information regarding how the review system should be used, and what would constitute an abuse of it. We thought this information should be expressed via a dedicated wiki page, which would certainly make moderation for us far easier, and less subjective. Potentially adding a new rule preventing any abuse of the system would result in us being able to punish persistent violators.

We already require evidence to be provided if the resource author reports the review for being misleading or false. This is in line with how vouches on product threads are moderated, and as I liken the review system more to vouches than our reputation system, I don't see this being an issue or something which should be altered. Requiring evidence when posting a review just seems unnecessary, and cluttersome.

I'll move this thread to pending for this to be looked into some more and for us to decide how to get that wiki page going.

Thanks for the suggestion

 

[Mick]

This has already been implemented, we just never got around to marking this suggestion as accepted.

Thank you very much for the suggestion! I'll move the thread now.