Most active commenters
  • conductr(8)
  • onlyrealcuzzo(3)
  • maerF0x0(3)
  • MBCook(3)
  • bluGill(3)

←back to thread

376 points indus | 77 comments | | HN request time: 0.426s | source | bottom
Show context
bragr ◴[] No.41915238[source]
Does the regulation say anything about deceptively moderating reviews? e.g. deleting all the low star reviews?

edit: it doesn't seem so. You just have use some weasel language:

>The final rule also bars a business from misrepresenting that the reviews on a review portion of its website represent all or most of the reviews submitted when reviews have been suppressed based upon their ratings or negative sentiment.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/...

replies(4): >>41915320 #>>41915513 #>>41916025 #>>41916194 #
1. onlyrealcuzzo ◴[] No.41915513[source]
How does this stop one of the most common practices?

* Step 1, take a product with a terrible rating

* Step 2, create a new SKU for the exact same product so it has no ratings

* Step 3, get a handful of fake 5-star reviews (in some way the FTC isn't going to crack down on)

* Step 4, blast the old terribly reviewed product that now has good reviews on marketing

* Step 5, get 10s of thousands of sales, $$$

* Step 6, let the terrible reviews pour in

Repeat to step 1 (possibly under a different brand name).

replies(10): >>41915589 #>>41915601 #>>41915678 #>>41915693 #>>41915890 #>>41915989 #>>41916260 #>>41916563 #>>41916946 #>>41917132 #
2. soco ◴[] No.41915589[source]
To all commenters quickly pointing out the ways this rule is far from perfect: you are completely right. This being clarified, is the alternative doing nothing? Because that's where we are.
replies(3): >>41915616 #>>41916134 #>>41918676 #
3. maerF0x0 ◴[] No.41915601[source]
This is an important thing to tackle too. Amazon is notorious for allowing shady practices like Sell product A for lots of 5* reviews, then change the product listing to a completely different thing (which may or may not deserve 5) ...

Another aspect is review solicitation. eg: ios games often pop up with their own modal of "Rate us" and if you click 5 it redirects you to app store to make a review, if you click 4 or less it redirects you to a feedback form. They grease the path for positive reviewers.

replies(5): >>41916239 #>>41917764 #>>41918193 #>>41918240 #>>41918997 #
4. maerF0x0 ◴[] No.41915616[source]
Well, I think where we are is having to prove its fraudulent. Agreed, impractically difficult.
5. s1artibartfast ◴[] No.41915678[source]
Im curious about the opposite practice, sharing reviews across several SKUs. I basically stopped looking at reviews because they were unrelated to the one I was buying.

I get that some products have configurations, like color and size, but often times wildly different products are grouped together.

replies(2): >>41915744 #>>41915847 #
6. bilekas ◴[] No.41915693[source]
Something similar to this happens on eBay. Sellers will sell a product say a usb adapter, cheap and fully functional, users leave reviews and then the seller changes the listing to be a completely different item, retaining all the previous ratings and sale counts. How would this apply here is a good question.

Wouldn't like to assume but regulatory bodies usually think about these things in advance no ?

replies(2): >>41915906 #>>41918791 #
7. internet101010 ◴[] No.41915744[source]
Case in point: candle scents.
8. layer8 ◴[] No.41915847[source]
On Amazon you can filter by the current configuration on the review page (at least on desktop).
replies(1): >>41916238 #
9. cortesoft ◴[] No.41915890[source]
I mean, step 3 would be illegal... your question is impossible to answer, since you hand waive the illegal step as saying "they do it in such a way that the FTC isn't going to crack down on".

This is basically the equivalent of saying "How are you going to stop crime X if they commit crime X in a way that let's them get away with X?"

Either they find a way to enforce the rules against step 3, or they fail to do so. We can't know yet.

replies(1): >>41915957 #
10. thereddaikon ◴[] No.41915906[source]
Haven't ebay reviews always meant to be about the seller and not necessarily the product? Ebay started with the expectation it was normal people auctioning used goods. Having reviews for a specific product doesn't make sense when there is no fixed product. Obviously things have changed over the years but the site is still largely built around those assumptions.
replies(1): >>41915938 #
11. bilekas ◴[] No.41915938{3}[source]
Yeah so when you view a listing now from a business it will show "100 units sold" but you're right it's crazy you can just change the whole product. I think it's specific for the business sellers.
12. Supermancho ◴[] No.41915957[source]
The online shoppers, that I know, have learned to pass on products with a few high reviews, in a highly competitive space. If the signal weak, it's not something to trust.
13. Suppafly ◴[] No.41915989[source]
Well step 3 is the part they just made illegal. If you are OK with breaking the law, nothing is going to stop you until you get caught and fined. Presumably the getting caught and fined part will be enough deterrent.
replies(2): >>41916033 #>>41916217 #
14. sidewndr46 ◴[] No.41916033[source]
what qualifies a review as fake? If I write it, it's a review isn't it? The whole thing is subjective. Plenty of people love products I can't stand
replies(4): >>41916117 #>>41916353 #>>41916893 #>>41917669 #
15. conductr ◴[] No.41916117{3}[source]
And how do they even audit it? Do they require only users who verifiably used/purchased the product to submit reviews? Do they require the reviewer to actually use the product? for sufficient amount of time so that the review is more than just "first impression"? So many loopholes, this won't change anything except perhaps a few big marketplaces but it's doubtful they will be able to police it
replies(2): >>41916216 #>>41917225 #
16. conductr ◴[] No.41916134[source]
When the FTC says "we're cracking down on online reviews" with things like this the average Joe gains more confidence in them, so yes, the doing nothing approach is actually better IMO.
replies(1): >>41916538 #
17. sidewndr46 ◴[] No.41916216{4}[source]
That's actually a really good point. I can review a can opener in a few minutes. Either it opens the can or it doesn't. How would I ever review something like a Ford F-350? I don't even have a trailer heavy enough to test the towing capacity.
replies(2): >>41916326 #>>41916348 #
18. onlyrealcuzzo ◴[] No.41916217[source]
There's a difference between "fake as defined by the FTC which you will actually get in trouble for" and "fake".
replies(1): >>41917382 #
19. Rebelgecko ◴[] No.41916238{3}[source]
On mobile they make it pretty hard to read reviews (or maybe im in some sort of A/B test where I'm only allowed to ask their LLM about what the reviews say?)
20. MBCook ◴[] No.41916239[source]
iOS: That’s 100% against the rules. Much like other dark patterns like forcing a sign up or location access as gating to the rest of the app. Or using notifications for advertising.

Now if only Apple would enforce those (or stop doing them themselves).

replies(3): >>41916279 #>>41916280 #>>41918138 #
21. rendaw ◴[] No.41916260[source]
Rating averaging methods _should_ treat scores with fewer data points as less trustworthy and either suppress showing the score or apply some early-rating bias. I.e. if users are sorting by rating new products should never be near the top.

Otherwise it should be possible to sort products or even brands/sellers by age and prefer older ones with more reviews.

I'm not sure Amazon does the first though ATM, and it definitely doesn't do the latter.

replies(1): >>41916643 #
22. schmidtleonard ◴[] No.41916279{3}[source]
Unenforced rules aren't rules so much as taxes on the honest.
replies(2): >>41916400 #>>41919291 #
23. avandekleut ◴[] No.41916280{3}[source]
oof - the app we work on at my company does all of these..
replies(2): >>41917482 #>>41917494 #
24. conductr ◴[] No.41916326{5}[source]
I see a ton of 5 star reviews that just say something like "Super fast shipping!" and think, "OK, have you even opened the box? does it work? is this review for FedEx?"
25. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.41916348{5}[source]
Well, that's a bad example ... The can opener I had for the first 50 years of my life left a dangerous crazy sharp metal edge around the opening which I cut myself on more than once. The Oxo can opener I've had for the last 10 years rolls the edge as it cuts and removes the entire top of the can; what's left is extremely safe, at least by comparison with the old style.

Then again, when I was much younger, I had a backpacking can opener that was useful when hiking in places where sometimes buying canned foods made sense. It was about as large as a very large postage stamp, and crazy good for the size and weight. I wouldn't want to use it at home (much), but it was awesome when I had to carry it around.

So, even for can openers, the story can be complicated.

Also, assuming that the primary purpose of an F350 is towing is ... interesting. Lots and lots of them here in rural NM (as much as anyway, anyway), and they are rarely towing anything.

replies(1): >>41916595 #
26. LargeWu ◴[] No.41916353{3}[source]
Some will be obvious, such as a review for a book or game or other media item that hasn't been publicly released. I would expect a platform such as Amazon would have responsibility to suppress reviews for items that are not, and have never been for sale. A flood of reviews all coming in immediately after the product goes on sale, or a statistically improbable distribution of geographic locations would also be suspicious.
27. MichaelZuo ◴[] No.41916400{4}[source]
That’s a pretty clever phrase!
28. maxerickson ◴[] No.41916538{3}[source]
So never do anything unless you can guarantee a particular outcome?
replies(1): >>41916667 #
29. lancesells ◴[] No.41916563[source]
Shop other places besides Amazon. They've enabled all of this to increase profits.
30. bear141 ◴[] No.41916595{6}[source]
Not debating the practicality here, but even if you need your truck to do something only once in the entirety of your ownership, it needs to be capable of this all the time. Towing, crawling, etc.
replies(2): >>41916767 #>>41916917 #
31. slipperybeluga ◴[] No.41916643[source]
This doesn't help when every useless chinese widget on Amazon with a RNG created brand name has literally thousands or even tens of thousands of fake reviews. Yeah like 10,000+ were so enamored with this {insert useless item here} that they felt compelled to leave a 5 star review. Amazon has totally sold out like eBay. I don't shop on either anymore because it's hard to find real brands and feedback and reviews are fake. Not to mention the blatant fakes of major products ...
replies(2): >>41917121 #>>41917716 #
32. conductr ◴[] No.41916667{4}[source]
That’s a stretch. But things like this only create a false illusion of safety/honesty which can actually be a tailwind for dishonesty.
replies(2): >>41918004 #>>41918080 #
33. mlyle ◴[] No.41916767{7}[source]
I disagree. I've never had a vehicle that does 100% of whatever I'd want a vehicle to do. At some point we need to make tradeoffs and accept that we'll either have limitations or need to solve some problems in a different way.

Letting something that is 1% of operating hours for a device drive requirements strongly is often a mistake. With some obvious exceptions because e.g. I cannot choose when I am going to engage in maximum braking and defer it to a different vehicle.

replies(1): >>41916913 #
34. r00fus ◴[] No.41916893{3}[source]
I don't know this seems to be fairly broad statement that could allow enforcement for any number of schemes:

> The final rule addresses reviews and testimonials that misrepresent that they are by someone who does not exist, such as AI-generated fake reviews, or who did not have actual experience with the business or its products or services, or that misrepresent the experience of the person giving it.

35. conductr ◴[] No.41916913{8}[source]
They do make trade offs. Just not the same you might make. The F350s are limited on where they can park and are a pain in the ass to drive around a city. Some people tow stuff more frequently than they go into the city though, so it probably is a reasonable trade off to them. Also comes with some other perks like comfort and more beefy off road capabilities. Something that is valuable in rural areas even without towing.

I tow stuff about a dozen times a year and live in a city. I drive a Tahoe because not being able to tow when you want to is a pretty big inconvenience even though I’m a single occupant driver 90% of the time and it’s way bigger than I “need”. Turns out it’s quite comfortable and I just like it, even if I wasn’t towing ever.

I went years of renting vehicles just to tow. It sucks in a lot of ways. No one just wakes up and thinks “I’m going to tow some stuff”. You’re doing it for a reason, there’s probably a high amount of labor involved in that reason, trying to do it all in the rental window or find an appropriate vehicle on the day you need it. Is a challenge. I’ve set rental reservations then it rains so I can’t do the work I needed to. Clear skies tomorrow but have to wait a week for another rental to be available. It’s a hassle.

Another thing I struggle with is my towing needs fluctuate a lot. Earlier this year I was doing a construction project and ended up needing to tow stuff practically every day for 6 weeks. If I tried to do that any other way than owning a capable vehicle, it’d have been logistically challenging. Trying to time vehicle rental with trailer and equipment rentals would have dragged the construction project out to easily triple the time just by adding delay, probably much longer. Not to mention the cost of it all. Which the bigger vehicles do cost more, but they are assets even if depreciating. When you rent it’s pure expense. The rent cs own calc can flip quickly.

replies(2): >>41917096 #>>41917223 #
36. vel0city ◴[] No.41916917{7}[source]
> but even if you need your truck to do something only once in the entirety of your ownership

I'd just say rent something for that one off time in its entire ownership. Otherwise, I'd be daily driving a 26' box truck because I moved apartments every few years.

One time I had to ship a few pallets of stuff across the country. I guess I should have just bought a semi-trailer truck as a daily driver.

replies(1): >>41917617 #
37. banannaise ◴[] No.41916946[source]
It's in the rules. Emphasis mine:

Fake or False Consumer Reviews, Consumer Testimonials, and Celebrity Testimonials: The final rule addresses reviews and testimonials that misrepresent that they are by someone who does not exist, such as AI-generated fake reviews, or who did not have actual experience with the business or its products or services

If you covertly switch the product, then the reviews shown are from people who did not have actual experience with the product.

38. mlyle ◴[] No.41917096{9}[source]
Sure. I'm not saying it's completely unreasonable.

Here the person was saying "once in the entirety of your ownership". If it's really once in the vehicle's life, then you really should rent something else when you need this.

I understand renting vehicles to move stuff is a PITA. I've used the hardware store's trucks several times and it adds a lot of anxiety to a project (though I've never had a really tough time with availability).

replies(1): >>41917319 #
39. reaperman ◴[] No.41917121{3}[source]
Not sure why this was flagged - it echoes my experience pretty accurately!
40. bluecalm ◴[] No.41917132[source]
Airbnb's business model in a nutshell :)
41. ultimafan ◴[] No.41917223{9}[source]
I bought a truck for similar reasons (was tired of constantly having to rent/borrow cars to tow or haul/pick up something that doesn't fit in a "normal" car). I got a lot of utility use out of it over the years and I do honestly agree, even though I now almost never have to use it for anything truck-related I'm still very happy with it, it's very comfortable and reliable. I'd buy another one in a heartbeat. The convenience of knowing I can spontaneously throw anything I want in the back without ever thinking or planning about it in the rare cases I do still occasionally have to is just the cherry on top at this point.
42. marinmania ◴[] No.41917225{4}[source]
I don't have the most faith it will be easy to execute but I would imagine:

- Some disgruntled people at company's could leak directly, which would make engaging in this behavior riskier

- Random individuals or competing companies could monitor product reviews and report. For example, show that an Amazon product ID used to be for another product 3 months ago when reviews were written.

I'm optimistic. There are a lot of regulations (including digital regulations) that everyone ends up following even if the government isn't monitoring things themselves. The risk of penalty just needs to be high enough, and hopefully places like Amazon realize the downside/penalty of fake reviews now makes it worth policing.

It obviously won't help your "first impression" review problem but that's not the intent of the law and not sure why the government would be involved in that. A lot of movies don't hold up well on a rewatch, too. If you are that particular about buying something that lasts X years then you can seek out dedicated advice blogs/youtube channels.

43. conductr ◴[] No.41917319{10}[source]
Ah I think he was making a point about the need being Boolean more so than a literal meaning of once. You said 1% which probably matches up to my usage of the tow feature. All good though, those rentals are definitely the most available but they rarely work for me as I usually need more time. They design it to be highly available for short store-to-home trips.

Occasionally I still rent, sometimes I need a bigger truck than I have due to weight.

44. jasonlotito ◴[] No.41917382{3}[source]
It's your comment in the context of the FTC. You said it was fake, in the context of the FTC. Why are you debating yourself?
replies(1): >>41918041 #
45. ahoka ◴[] No.41917482{4}[source]
Did you just have an “Are we the baddies?” moment?
replies(1): >>41918804 #
46. MBCook ◴[] No.41917494{4}[source]
Well I understand why people don’t like some of them, the truth is the vast majority of the App Store rules are really good as an end user/consumer.

Unfortunately Apple doesn’t seem to care unless the rule is really good for Apple.

47. bluGill ◴[] No.41917617{8}[source]
I can rent a box truck for moving easially enough, and generally I know far enough in advance that I can reserve it.

However I've never found a truck I can rent to two. Sure I can rent trucks, but they come up with a large pile of fine print which says I cannot two. Even those box trucks cannot tow, or can tow but only their trailer which has specific restrictions on what you can use it for. Oh, and the trailer they allow you to use has surge brakes which are terrible.

replies(1): >>41918330 #
48. kevin_thibedeau ◴[] No.41917669{3}[source]
Amazon is loaded with LLM generated reviews now. They stand out as overly wordy and rambling while being light on any critical discussion of the product.
49. bluGill ◴[] No.41917716{3}[source]
Unfortunately some of the weird things I need I can't figure out who else sells them. I can search amazon or ebay and find someone but they don't have a presence elsewhere (at least not that I can find)
50. thechao ◴[] No.41917764[source]
If an app pops up a "rate us" modal, it gets a 1-star in the app store, with a note to the developer why. I don't care how great your app is.
replies(3): >>41918092 #>>41918242 #>>41918721 #
51. hluska ◴[] No.41918004{5}[source]
So, don’t do anything at all because there will always be an issue with anything you do? Being negative is a weakness.
replies(1): >>41918262 #
52. onlyrealcuzzo ◴[] No.41918041{4}[source]
Please re-read. The FTC defining it as fake means nothing if the FTC does not, in practice, crack down on it regularly.

The FTC can say it's illegal to do X, and all companies can do X with impunity if the FTC, in practice, does not do anything about it when companies do X.

53. maxerickson ◴[] No.41918080{5}[source]
My assessment is more that the average consumer won't have any idea that the FTC is doing this, so I am not real worried about the downsides.
replies(1): >>41918457 #
54. exe34 ◴[] No.41918092{3}[source]
on my phone, I have play store firewalled and only allow it out when I want updates/install something.

if I could be bothered with the effort, this is the kind of petty I would engage in.

55. rgovostes ◴[] No.41918138{3}[source]
I've thought about starting a page to call out the apps that abuse push notifications for ads to show that Apple isn't enforcing its rule.

> 4.5.4 ... Push Notifications should not be used for promotions or direct marketing purposes unless customers have explicitly opted in to receive them via consent language displayed in your app’s UI, and you provide a method in your app for a user to opt out from receiving such messages. Abuse of these services may result in revocation of your privileges.

The worst offender is DoorDash. If you turn off push ads, after you place an order it will prompt you to turn on notifications "to get the latest on your order". Agreeing turns on ads. You get the prompt even if you already have order update notifications enabled.

replies(1): >>41919181 #
56. rsync ◴[] No.41918193[source]
Does the new product have the same ASIN ?

How could they allow this?

replies(1): >>41919134 #
57. greggsy ◴[] No.41918240[source]
Isn’t that against App Store TOS?
58. trinsic2 ◴[] No.41918242{3}[source]
Absolutely my practice as well. App devs should never be in the business of nagging for reviews.
59. conductr ◴[] No.41918262{6}[source]
How about; do things that you can enforce and expect a positive net impact from, do things in a way that will address the dozens of obvious first impression questions that came up here due to lack of specifics. If you’re going to do it, put some thought into its execution and administration.

And most of all, don’t make global generalizations on commentary that is quite specific and on a very particular topic.

replies(1): >>41918822 #
60. vel0city ◴[] No.41918330{9}[source]
I've rented trucks to tow a few times over the years. Enterprise truck rental has trucks for towing, just a weight restriction.

But to be honest the vast majority of times I've needed to rent a truck to tow something it's because I was renting something towable. I can't imagine I'd bother renting some equipment from one place just to rent a truck from someplace else.

In fact, it's not like one needs some giant truck to tow many things. The vehicle I've owned that had the most use out of its tow hitch was a Ford Focus. I've gotten a bit of use from my midsize crossover which has 5,000lbs of tow capacity. More than enough for a small boat or jet skis or a small trailer.

replies(1): >>41918587 #
61. conductr ◴[] No.41918457{6}[source]
Not initially, but in time they tend to hear about it. Some shops are bound to brag that their reviews are FTC compliant and unbiased, etc.
62. bluGill ◴[] No.41918587{10}[source]
The only trailers I can find for rents have surge brakes (or not brakes at all - and thus too light duty for what I want to haul). I'll keep my trailer with electric brakes just to avoid those.
63. jessriedel ◴[] No.41918676[source]
Rules degenerating into infinite whack-a-mole is a strong (though inconclusive) signal a mistake is being made. "Let's ban rent increases". "Whoops, now all the landlords are slacking on property maintenance; let's mandate maintenance." "Whoops, now all the landlords have stopped making improvements; let's let them increase rents X% when they spend at least $Y on improvements." "Whoops,..."

So you end up in some new equilibrium. Maybe that equilibrium is better, maybe it's worse, but it's simply not true that it's always better to do something rather than nothing, and pointing out the loopholes in the rules is valid criticism.

64. baxtr ◴[] No.41918721{3}[source]
As an indie app developer this makes me really sad. We need reviews otherwise we won’t get enough downloads. Big companies can pay huge amounts on ads, we can’t and thus rely on positive reviews and ratings. Fact is that most users won’t rate unless asked.

If you really like an app give it a nice review.

replies(3): >>41918821 #>>41919160 #>>41919502 #
65. bcrosby95 ◴[] No.41918791[source]
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/...

They proposed including review hijacking. There's probably a reason why they didn't include it. Or maybe they think the rules they included already cover it.

66. JacobThreeThree ◴[] No.41918804{5}[source]
They probably get way more reviews with the prompt, and positive ones, than without it, despite how some morally indignant outlier HN commenters would react.
replies(1): >>41920066 #
67. maerF0x0 ◴[] No.41918821{4}[source]
we will, of our own accord without nagging.
replies(1): >>41919331 #
68. bcrosby95 ◴[] No.41918822{7}[source]
They have though. This has been a 2 year process.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/10/...

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/...

They probably came to different conclusions as you. And I'm sure they have reasons why they left some of that stuff on the original list out. Because they spent 2 years looking at this rather than going with their "obvious first impression questions".

You'll also note from those links that they have already been pursuing some companies over this stuff. So they're probably aware of what they're up against.

69. pbhjpbhj ◴[] No.41918997[source]
"Amazon is notorious for allowing shady practices"

Surely, 'conspiring to/orchestrating profit through immoral practices' is a more precise statement of Amazon's activities.

70. skeltoac ◴[] No.41919134{3}[source]
New ASIN. They can take a physically unbranded product and list it under a new name brand at will. They can change the quantity or bundle. They can change an irrelevant attribute. Amazon plays ignorant.

I sell a product there and some of my competitors are doing those things I listed. Their reviews are also very obviously fake. I’ve also received some obviously fake negative reviews. I’m not really holding out any hope that it’ll get better anytime soon.

I just reduced my Amazon advertising spend so I can focus on other channels. Also a little bit out of spite.

71. tpmoney ◴[] No.41919160{4}[source]
While I appreciate that need, as a user this is the worst way to get me to review your app. Especially because so many of them aren't tuned for paying any attention at all to what their users are doing before prompting them. I had one app recently prompt me for a review before I'd even completed their "first time tutorial" slide deck. Not only do I not know enough at that point in time to even review the app, but if I was so inclined to click through at that moment it would have been to leave a review complaining about the practice rather than saying anything substantive about the app's functionality. But even when they're not that bad, they're almost always popping up when I open the app (the moment when I'm specifically intending to do something that I'm now being interrupted) or in the middle of some workflow. It's the same annoying behavior that web pop-up folks used to do too.

Personally, I'd rather see you add a small UI element somewhere, or a banner that appears briefly but critically doesn't cover up any controls. If you absolutely MUST use a pop up, you know when the best time to do that is? After I've completed some in app purchase. If I'm spending money on your product, chances are I'm moderately satisfied with it and feeling pretty good about it at that moment. Or if you don't have in app purchases, unless you've made a "content browsing only" app, you probably have some workflows that have a definite end state. Prompt me then, at the end of me doing what I've come to your app to do. But I've never once given a review / stars to any app that has interrupted me in the middle of or at the start of doing something.

72. Dalewyn ◴[] No.41919181{4}[source]
I block every single notif from nearly every single program on my phone. The only real exceptions are my bank and brokerage and games I play everyday; you know, stuff I actually care about.

I haven't lost anything from blocking the rest, and I'm not about to start allowing now.

"Notif" because it's Not a question of If I will allow them, also because it's not worthy of being called by a full and proper name.

replies(1): >>41919308 #
73. potato3732842 ◴[] No.41919291{4}[source]
And a potential cudgel with which to strike those who's success is inconvenient.
74. dgfitz ◴[] No.41919308{5}[source]
I just don’t install apps.
75. williamdclt ◴[] No.41919331{5}[source]
It’s only a guess, but I don’t think data is on your side. I seriously doubt that appreciative users “will, of their own accord with your nagging” rate apps. I’d bet it’s less than 2% who do
76. zaptheimpaler ◴[] No.41919502{4}[source]
Yeah I understand this and definitely do not retaliate against being asked for reviews. I find the usual modal pop-up for a review can be a bit jarring or appear at inopportune moments though, i wonder if not using modals would be better.
77. MBCook ◴[] No.41920066{6}[source]
Oh they absolutely work. And given that ratings are about the only thing that matters in the App Store besides search ads, there is a huge incentive to push for it no matter how horrible it is for the user.