Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Rating Balance: Difference between revisions

(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 1:

{{KidsIntro|On WikiDeal, ~~we want~~ feedback to be fair and honest. If you ~~take the time to~~ leave detailed, useful comments, you earn thank-you rewards (like Karma tokens ~~or small surprises)~~. But if someone always gives 5 ~~stars~~ or 1 star without thinking~~, or ignores feedback requests~~, the system balances it ~~out so everyone gets a fair picture~~.}}

{{KidsIntro|On WikiDeal, feedback should be fair and honest. If you leave detailed, useful comments, you earn thank-you rewards like Karma tokens. But if someone always gives 5 or 1 star without thinking, the system balances it fairly.}}

{{ExpertIntro|Rating Balance ~~encompasses~~ the proactive policies to stimulate honest, calibrated, ~~and~~ diversified marketplace ratings. ~~This framework, still~~ under construction via upcoming open calls, ~~integrates "~~incentivized feedback" (rewarding ~~detailed,~~ constructive reviews with Karma ~~or privileges~~ rather than money) and mechanisms ~~connecting~~ to the Maturity Score and Civic Incentive ~~(e.g.~~, ~~educating users, rewarding early reviews, and applying~~ a ~~"tax"~~ on systematic ignorance or artificial positivity).}}

{{ExpertIntro|Rating Balance groups the proactive policies proposed to stimulate honest, calibrated, diversified marketplace ratings. Still under construction via upcoming open calls, it would integrate incentivized feedback (rewarding constructive reviews with Karma rather than money) and mechanisms linking to the Maturity Score and Civic Incentive, including a corrective on systematic ignorance or artificial positivity.}}

~~__TOC__~~

{{ArticleSummary|

* [[#the-policy|The Policy in Brief]]

* [[#incentivized-feedback|Incentivized Feedback]]

* [[#mechanisms|Mechanisms and Connections]]

* [[#state-of-the-art|State of the art]]

}}

__NOTOC__

= Rating Balance =

Line 19:

Line 25:

The '''Rating Balance''' framework aims at keeping marketplace ratings '''honest, calibrated and diversified'''. It is not just an indicator: it is a policy that proactively stimulates balance rather than merely measuring it.

Because this system is highly complex, the specific algorithms and rules are ''not yet finalized''. They are intended to be built and refined through dedicated open calls (e.g., [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-~~Call~~:Rating-Balance-Processes|Open Call: Rating Balance Processes]]).

Because this system is highly complex, the specific algorithms and rules are ''not yet finalized''. They are intended to be built and refined through dedicated open calls (e.g., [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Rating-Balance-Processes|Open Call: Rating Balance Processes]]).

The envisioned policy rests on three pillars:

Line 46:

Line 52:

----

'''See also:''' [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-~~Call~~:Rating-Balance-Processes|Open Call: Rating Balance Processes]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Civic-Incentive|Civic incentive]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Maturity Score|Maturity Score]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Main|All innovations]]

== State of the art ==

Proactive balancing of marketplace ratings starts from a rich empirical literature on online reviews, their biases and their manipulation. The studies below document the problems this innovation aims to address.

* Steven Tadelis (2016), ''Reputation and Feedback Systems in Online Platform Markets'', Annual Review of Economics, 8: [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080315-015325 doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080315-015325].

* Dina Mayzlin, Yaniv Dover and Judith Chevalier (2014), ''Promotional Reviews: An Empirical Investigation of Online Review Manipulation'', American Economic Review, 104(8): [https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.8.2421 doi:10.1257/aer.104.8.2421].

* Gary Bolton, Ben Greiner and Axel Ockenfels (2013), ''Engineering Trust: Reciprocity in the Production of Reputation Information'', Management Science, 59(2): [https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1609 doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1609].

* Nan Hu, Jie Zhang and Paul A. Pavlou (2009), ''Overcoming the J-shaped distribution of product reviews'', Communications of the ACM, 52(10): [https://doi.org/10.1145/1562764.1562800 doi:10.1145/1562764.1562800].

* Judith A. Chevalier and Dina Mayzlin (2006), ''The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews'', Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3): [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345 doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_system reputation system on Wikipedia].

'''See also:''' [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Calls:Rating-Balance-Processes|Open Call: Rating Balance Processes]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:Economy/Civic-Incentive|Civic incentive]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Maturity Score|Maturity Score]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Main|All innovations]]

[[Category:Migration June 2026]]

[[Category:Innovation]]