Some consumers give negative reviews because the merchant did not give away garlic as mentioned in the remarks, or they ordered extremely spicy takeout but said it was not spicy in reality.
Who has the final say whether negative reviews should be displayed on the platform?
The introduction of a third-party review mechanism is intended to resolve disputes over negative reviews, but the randomness of review tasks sometimes creates difficulties for reviewers.
According to our newspaper (Reporter Liu Xiaoyan) "Users gave bad reviews because the dishes were cold, but the merchants believed that they served the meals normally and it was a matter of delivery. It is not easy to judge who is more reasonable." At 2 pm on February 5, Tian I secretly opened the review panel entrance of the takeout software and encountered a difficult review task: the delivery time of 22 minutes is not long, maybe because the merchant did not provide an insulated bag. In the end, Tian Mi chose the option "suitable for display", and the page immediately showed that the current voting ratio for this option was 54%. In the end, the negative review was displayed by the platform.
Platform users vote to decide whether to display negative reviews, which has become a popular feature on platforms such as food delivery and daily life services recently. A "Worker Daily" reporter clicked on the relevant page and found that to become a reviewer, you need to meet the conditions of registration for more than 3 months, real-name authentication, consumption records in the past 90 days, and passing the reviewer exam. Tian Mi is one of the reviewers.
According to the platform rules, users vote on the assigned controversial content. If they choose "not suitable for display", it means that the evaluation is unreasonable and supports the merchant. Within the 24-hour or 48-hour review task period, if there are more than or equal to 11 reviewers participating in the review and determination, the platform will implement the corresponding results based on the supporter of the majority vote.
"Some consumers leave negative reviews because the merchants did not give away garlic as stated, or they ordered extremely spicy takeout but said it was not spicy. Therefore, on the premise that consumers can leave negative reviews without any threshold, merchants are given the opportunity to appeal. It is necessary." Among the review tasks Tian Mi received, there were many such situations.
Since after selecting “not suitable for display”, the controversial content will not be seen by users on the ordering platform, many users like Tian Mi shared their review experiences on social platforms, thus forming a craze for “Jury Awards”. Reporters found on multiple social platforms that these cases were reposted in the form of pictures, text, videos, etc. There were as many as 45,000 users in a single discussion group.
At the same time, some users also said that the review mechanism needs to be improved. For example, some users in the north received review tasks that were all in Cantonese, saying that they could not understand them at all; some of the dishes involved in the discussion were not within the user’s common sense, and they had no similar consumption records; some users wanted to Some dispute processes can be displayed to prompt consumers to make reasonable evaluations, but they are worried that it will be detrimental to the merchant's rating.
In this regard, Zhu Wei, deputy director of the Communication Law Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law, believes that the purpose of the public review mechanism is to introduce a third-party review mechanism to resolve disputes at the source and create an environment of harmony and trust. Evaluation content is not only an expression of user consumption experience, but also important reference information for consumers when making purchases, which to a certain extent reflects the reputation of the merchant.
"The 'Jury Awards' display of unreasonable but interesting comments will indeed increase the interest of the content, but it does not really solve the pain points faced by merchants with negative reviews." Zhu Wei believes that after the controversial tasks are randomly distributed to the judges, the judges will As an ordinary consumer, we will give review opinions based on general life experience, universal rationality and a simple sense of justice, and will also issue some improvement suggestions for merchants, which is more in line with the original intention of the public review mechanism and can also allow platform merchants to do business with more confidence Business. (Worker Daily)