Jump to content
Gov  ·  Market  ·  Community  ·  Policies  ·  Funding  ·  Open Calls  ·  Get started

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

Shorten intros per Theo's 20s rule
Standardise manual summary: On this page list wrapped in Template:ArticleSummary, same entries (Theo 2026-08-17)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
{{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.}}
{{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 =
= Rating Balance =
Line 46: Line 52:


----
----
<span id="state-of-the-art"></span>
== 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]]
'''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]]