You probably have seen how dramatically the internet of lay review has changed the way restaurants and other businesses are reviewed. Sites have allowed consumers to connect with others and find the best services and products. Websites can also be used to filter users based on different criteria. However, can sites verify the authenticity of reviews?
These platforms promote democracy but require extensive editorial resources. Many of them rely on contributors with a strong personality to generate a large volume of content. These websites must also ensure that reviews are based upon actual consumption experiences. They should also be able to control the homogeneous rating system.
The goal of consumer review websites is to do this by bringing together many consumers to provide an aggregate assessment of restaurants. The average scores are used to rank them. This means that they entail a two-fold democratic ambition: on the one hand, they seek to democratize the process of reviewing by enabling a large number of people to participate, but on the other hand, they need to ensure that the opinions they publish are fair and reliable.
Participation platforms must encourage the creation of ratings in order to accomplish this. Participation platforms must manage both the algorithmic scoring of individual ratings as well as the publication of written comments. They are responsible for associating review authors with pseudonyms and facilitating the production of a range of ratings.
For the website managers, these strategies have the potential to contribute to a more democratized restaurant industry. These websites will enable you to review more restaurants. Andererseits, these sites will enable businesses to respond positively to negative reviews.
Whatever strategy the website uses, the goal is to increase the quality of restaurant selections. Aside from providing the most accurate information, they can also be considered an important extension of the traditional taste-making process.
The consumer reviews site is a crucial extension to the participatory process begun by printed guides. These guides are still highly selective and do not include all restaurants. Reviews that are anonymously written will not always be based on actual eating experience. This increases the risk of misleading and deceptive reviews. However, if a site uses algorithms to select its participants and produce their reviews, then the results will be less distorted.
Sites like Nomao and Dismoiou demonstrate algorithmic egalitarianism. A restaurant is given an average score between one and five in this system. The average score is then added to the restaurant's rating to create a mean rating. These ratings are then added to the average score from other restaurants to determine the overall score.