Unreliable rating system calls for credibility check

Illustration: Chen Xia/GT

Nowadays, we are used to opening an app to skim public reviews for reference before going to a restaurant. If it has a score of 4.8 or above on a 5-point scale, the restaurant is guaranteed to be a good choice; 4.5 points may be worth trying, but if it is a 4 or even less, it almost always means the restaurant is so terrible that you are likely to suffer.

Interestingly, recent topics such as "Restaurants with low ratings may taste better" and "Youngsters hail the 3.5-point restaurant" have topped the list of search queries. Many netizens shared on social media that they have been to some low-scoring but yummy restaurants, while others said they were disappointed by a few high-rated restaurants that have been trending  online. For example, ratings of tasty little cafés and small restaurants are usually not remarkable, while high scores do not automatically mean quality, especially those that are newly opened. In essence, people are no longer entirely convinced by ratings and related reviews posted online after they have found that specific high scores failed to live up to their reputation. Thus, some young people have decided to rebuild the rating system and seek out those "hidden black pearls" currently rated as mediocre or even poor.

As the saying goes, "one man's meat is another man's poison" and "different strokes for different folks." Whether consumers feel a place is worth trying or not depends on the balance between their expectations and the prices they pay, including other subjective factors to a degree. But what is essential for everyone is the authenticity of the evaluation. We need to analyze the reasons that lead to the present situation and reflect on measures to improve credibility and consumer experiences.

For one thing, quite a few business runners rely so primarily on decent scores to attract consumers that they manipulate ratings by buying positive reviews to increase traffic. For another, those delicious but low-scoring players ignore or pay no additional attention to the management of their rating. Besides this, some consumers may go against their original intention and give high scores or compliments to restaurants because they are too shy to refuse when asked to submit comments or they receive complimentary dishes or discounts.

It's a vicious circle. Under such circumstances, more business runners have to join the high-score competition by various means. The rating system increasingly loses credibility, which disrupts market order. Consumers become more vulnerable when reference apps fail. Eventually, both parties fall victim, and one or the other rises to resist the current mechanism and look for alternatives, which explains the actions of some young people.

In fact, E-Commerce Law makes it clear that e-commerce operators shall not engage in false propaganda by fictitious transactions, fabricating user feedback, or other means to deceive or mislead consumers. In this regard, some business runners have gotten around this by offering free dishes or discounts in exchange for good scores or inviting internet celebrities to endorse them.

Concerning these phenomena, platforms must adjust their evaluation indexes so that they are comprehensive, fair and authentic-oriented, such as exploring more dimensions to guide players to focus on the cuisine itself rather than manipulate ratings. Meanwhile, they should develop richer ways for quality players who need more exposure to display themselves and earn what they deserve. In addition, the rating mechanism should include regular supervision, strict examination and punitive measures to improve value and create a healthy competitive atmosphere because credibility remains a core asset. Otherwise, users will eventually abandon platforms, leaving those tricky players to their marketing game.

Returning the right of independent choices to consumers without interference or infringement is a sound way for cuisine ranking lists, rating platforms and all digital economy operators.

The author is a faculty member with the School of Applied Economics, Renmin University of China.