Latest revision as of 15:15, 9 August 2026

💡 In simple words: We are looking for ideas on how to build the rules that keep ratings and comments fair for everyone.

🎯 In 20 seconds (scientific summary): This Wave 2 Open Call seeks proposals for structuring the Rating Balance processes. We need concrete models, algorithms, and governance structures to implement incentivized comments, early reviewer rewards, user education, and penalties for artificial positivity or systematic ignorance, ensuring that ratings remain honest, calibrated, and diversified.

Open Call: Rating Balance Processes

Open Call Status
Wave	Second Wave (Draft)
Status	Not launched yet
Members / Commission	Undetermined (Under construction)
Chairperson	TBD
Facilitator	TBD

Context

The WikiDeal ecosystem relies on a unified Rating Balance policy to ensure that marketplace comments is reliable and robust. Rather than just measuring user sentiment, the platform intends to actively stimulate balanced, useful comments through civic incentives and structural penalties.

Because this system is highly complex, the specific rules, thresholds, and algorithms are not yet finalized. This Open Call invites the community, economists, and UX designers to propose the operational mechanisms that will govern these processes.

What we are looking for

Proposals should cover the implementation of the Rating Balance mechanisms:

Algorithm Calibration: How should extreme patterns (systematic 1-star or 5-star scores) be weighted based on a rater's track record?
Incentivizing Comments: Models for offering non-monetary rewards (Karma tokens, extra nights, privileges) that genuinely stimulate detailed reviews without compromising honesty.
User Education & Moderation: Tools and interface concepts to teach users how to leave constructive, precise comments without wasting time.
Early Reviewer Strategies: How to identify, reward, and protect the "early adopters" who take the time to comment on brand new services or providers.
The Comments "Tax": Defining the penalty mechanisms for users who frequently ignore comments requests or who exclusively leave un-nuanced positive comments.

How to contribute

If you have ideas, mathematical models, or behavioral insights to share, please post your proposal on the Discussion tab of this page.

See also: Rating Balance · Civic incentive · Main Open Call Page

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{KidsIntro|We are looking for ideas on how to build the rules that keep ratings and feedback fair for everyone.}}
+{{KidsIntro|We are looking for ideas on how to build the rules that keep ratings and comments fair for everyone.}}
-{{ExpertIntro|This Wave 2 Open Call seeks proposals for structuring the Rating Balance processes. We need concrete models, algorithms, and governance structures to implement incentivized feedback, early reviewer rewards, user education, and penalties for artificial positivity or systematic ignorance, ensuring that ratings remain honest, calibrated, and diversified.}}
+{{ExpertIntro|This Wave 2 Open Call seeks proposals for structuring the Rating Balance processes. We need concrete models, algorithms, and governance structures to implement incentivized comments, early reviewer rewards, user education, and penalties for artificial positivity or systematic ignorance, ensuring that ratings remain honest, calibrated, and diversified.}}
+{| class="infobox" style="float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; width: 300px; font-size: 90%; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.2em;"
+! colspan="2" style="background: #ccf; text-align: center;" | Open Call Status
+|-
+! Wave
+| Second Wave (Draft)
+|-
+! Status
+| Not launched yet
+|-
+! Members / Commission
+| Undetermined (Under construction)
+|-
+! Chairperson
+| TBD
+|-
+! Facilitator
+| TBD
+|}
 __TOC__
@@ Line 8: / Line 27: @@
 <span id="context"></span>
 == Context ==
-The WikiDeal ecosystem relies on a unified [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Rating_Balance|Rating Balance]] policy to ensure that marketplace feedback is reliable and robust. Rather than just measuring user sentiment, the platform intends to actively stimulate balanced, useful feedback through civic incentives and structural penalties.
+The WikiDeal ecosystem relies on a unified [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Rating_Balance|Rating Balance]] policy to ensure that marketplace comments is reliable and robust. Rather than just measuring user sentiment, the platform intends to actively stimulate balanced, useful comments through civic incentives and structural penalties.
 Because this system is highly complex, the specific rules, thresholds, and algorithms are ''not yet finalized''. This Open Call invites the community, economists, and UX designers to propose the operational mechanisms that will govern these processes.
@@ Line 16: / Line 35: @@
 Proposals should cover the implementation of the Rating Balance mechanisms:
 * '''Algorithm Calibration:''' How should extreme patterns (systematic 1-star or 5-star scores) be weighted based on a rater's track record?
-* '''Incentivizing Feedback:''' Models for offering non-monetary rewards (Karma tokens, extra nights, privileges) that genuinely stimulate detailed reviews without compromising honesty.
+* '''Incentivizing Comments:''' Models for offering non-monetary rewards (Karma tokens, extra nights, privileges) that genuinely stimulate detailed reviews without compromising honesty.
 * '''User Education & Moderation:''' Tools and interface concepts to teach users how to leave constructive, precise comments without wasting time.
 * '''Early Reviewer Strategies:''' How to identify, reward, and protect the "early adopters" who take the time to comment on brand new services or providers.
-* '''The Feedback "Tax":''' Defining the penalty mechanisms for users who frequently ignore feedback requests or who exclusively leave un-nuanced positive comments.
+* '''The Comments "Tax":''' Defining the penalty mechanisms for users who frequently ignore comments requests or who exclusively leave un-nuanced positive comments.
 <span id="how-to-contribute"></span>