[verdverm]

I believe they mean something like... you're filtering for only positive reviews (best for your customers) rather than unbiased perspectives (so that humans are best served by unfiltered truth)

So the company is able to "lie" to potential customers.

How companies manipulate Glassdoor is an interesting case study

[sharath39]

True. Our algorithm decides which ones are the best shoutouts you can use and we suggest it to you.

[verdverm]

My hunch is most of society wants trusted and unbiased reviews rather than filtering or manipulation.

I doubt there is more money in that direction though

[sharath39]

We believe the same. In the age of information overload building credibility on the Internet is tough. That's why we are building Shoutout. It will dig the unbiased positive shoutouts and help creators, startups build credibility.

[smoe]

Personally, from a consumer perspective I'm not convinced postive reviews are actually that useful, vetted or nor.

E.g. on Amazon I ended up only ever reading 3 star reviews. Not for their positivity or negativity, but because they often point out some shortcomming of the product that might or might not effect me. Say some audio hardware not supporting some MIDI feature. I might not care about it at all, or it is a dealbreaker. I have made more pruchase decision based on those reviews than positive ones. For the latter what usually lacks is knowledge about the context, the use case they have.

[TeMPOraL]

> It will dig the unbiased positive shoutouts

If you filter for positive shoutouts only, the result becomes strongly biased by definition :).

[verdverm]

This right here, this is what OP is failing to understand.

[Nextgrid]

It's hard to make someone understand something when their salary depends on not understanding it.

[verdverm]

If it's just positive reviews on a website, i skip it as low information.

Tweet compilations actually decrease trust for me if they are on a website. Twitter sucks overall and bringing obviously filtered tweets is a turnoff.

As a consumer in both business and general, I want third parties who give unbiased reviews, covering multiple vendors / products which solve my problem. This is why genuine influencer marketing is doing well. I actually spend a fair amount of time on youtube looking at reviews and finding trustworthy sources there. They need to point out flaws and put some products down do gain that trust

[nonameiguess]

Agree with this strongly. If Steve from Gamers Nexus, Jeff from Athlean X, Wendell from L1 Techs, Greg from Stronger by Science, say a product is good, I'll believe it. I've followed them for years and know them and trust them. Random Twitter users, no matter how many there appear to be, not so much.

How does this filter even assure that these are real accounts and not bots or a Serbian click farm selling positive impressions?

[verdverm]

Step 1, buy tweets for reviews

Step 2, use tweets for marketing

[lupire]

No, you don't "believe the same", because you only accept positively-biased reviews.

[ZephyrBlu]

These are not meant to be reviews. It's just social proof showing that other people like the product to build trust.

Since they're Tweets it's also theoretically organic, which is even better.

[sharath39]

Agree with you. Also we are not asking anyone to form any behavior. People naturally give shoutouts to others(depends on their work) and we believe it should be used to our leverage instead of buried deep under these social platforms. That's where Shoutout comes in picture.

[paxys]

This is for advertising, not review aggregation. Those are two very different things.

[lupire]

Double the market: sell positive tweets to sellers, and negative tweets to shoppers.