[byproxy]

No, but it shows that you only care to share in the bad, not the good. There is a tint to your worldview and it'd be useful for others to see that when weighing what you have to say.

For the record, I rarely leave reviews. When I do, though, it's only for the exceptionally bad or the exceptionally good.

[jjoonathan]

I'd argue that the bias is a natural consequence of two interacting effects, neither of which necessarily represents a "tinted worldview": a skew in quality distribution and a minimum threshold for information value.

It's hard for a product or service to exceed its expected value by more than a fraction or small multiple, while it's easy to cause misery well in excess of a dozen or even a hundred times the expected value. I believe that's more a reflection of it being easier to destroy vs create rather than a reflection of psychology. Combine this distribution with a heuristic to only report deviations from expectation in excess of a minimum threshold and the "average review score" will reliably undershoot the actual quality.

That's only a problem if you want to interpret the average review score as an absolute measure of quality, though, and I don't think anyone really does. Most of us are more interested in communicating and informing our decision processes than in passing moral judgement, and if our goal is to optimize communication then we should expect negative reviews to dominate the discussion because they're inherently capable of more meaningful excursions from the mean.

I agree with your overall point: it would be fantastically useful to be able to contextualize reviews against reviewer psychology. That way I could ignore both shouting from negative-nellys and forced positivity from those who feel compelled to balance the universe :-)

[byproxy]

>if our goal is to optimize communication then we should expect negative reviews to dominate the discussion because they're inherently capable of more meaningful excursions from the mean.

In reality, however, it seems that positive reviews tend to dominate. Using Google Maps reviews as my barometer, I hardly ever see any place rated less than 4.5 stars. So, I tend to think to myself "4.5-5 stars: might be good. 4 stars: probably okay. Less than 4: maybe steer clear."

Though, in practice I disregard reviews, take a plunge, and then decide on my own. Often I find myself in conflict with the average majority opinion.

[juhzy]

Why would I write a good review? If I go to a place and pay I expect to be treated well; being treated the way I expect is not noteworthy (or "reviewworthy")

[intopieces]

Your response sounds flippant, but I am with you, except I don’t see the value in writing reviews at all, good or bad. I have no stake in whether another person is persuaded to patronize or avoid a place. Moreover, I doubt any online review I write would have any impact on the business itself.

If I have a specific complaint for a place close to my heart, like a coffee shop or restaurant or local shop, I’ll talk to the manager, privately and calmly, and be on my way.

[byproxy]

I'm not trying to change your process, but just letting you know that that process is not the same for everyone, hence it'd be useful for others to know your "tint."

It's interesting that your main criteria is how you feel you were treated, though. Discussed in the article:

"Restaurant reviews in which people sound traumatized by perceived injustice don’t tend to comment much on the food — it’s usually the perception of being treated rudely or uncaringly that seems to have pushed people into processing by writing out their feelings in a public forum."

[juhzy]

I think it's normal. Poor food may mean many things and most of them are not malicious. But being treated rudely or uncaringly? You deserve your bad review.

[byproxy]

>Poor food may mean many things and most of them are not malicious.

I honestly feel the same about poor service. I'm usually accommodating and understanding, but I'm no monk. Of course there are times when I feel either the poor food or poor service merit some mention.

Most of the time, however, I think "they're human, going through human things. No big deal."

[munchbunny]

Most people look at reviews to see whether the thing actually is what it claims to be, so reviews saying that it is in fact what it claims to be are useful.

Doesn't mean you have to, just means that it'd be more helpful to others if you write "it actually is what it claims to be" reviews.

[cirgue]

Because the world is not divided into good and bad, and I care about the 'why' of a rating much more than I care about whether it's positive or negative.

[gowld]

What's the difference between an entity with a long, postitive reputation, and a new unknown entity?

Do you consider them equally attractive?