This is a good thing and I do not agree that it is negative for users.
Often I see reviews such as "love the app but it's crashing sometimes since I upgraded to ICS 2 days ago, so I gave it 1 star". Don't get me wrong, it happened to me too on my iPad when I upgraded to iOS 6, but I simply sent an email to the developers, asking them whether a fix is going to come in the next day or two and they replied back promptly that I should wait for a fix later that day. The result of this interaction was a 4-star review and a happy user.
The sentiment of self-entitlement in some users is absolutely amazing, especially for free apps. I also see lots of reviews such as - "the app sucks because it displays ads and to get rid of ads you must pay". Well, if you're a cheap bastard, there's nothing wrong with that (I'm a cheap bastard too), but have the decency to stand up to your beliefs.
A negative review can really damage the reputation of an app. It can be used by your competition to lower your rankings and it can be used by bored people that have nothing to do other than to piss on the work of other people.
Anonymity has its place but I don't think it has a place in the app store. Many developers don't have the marketing budget of bigger companies, so they can't generate enough good reviews to bury the bad ones. Fake reviews are also harder to generate. This can't be bad for users.
And contrary to what other people say, nothing is going to stop me from posting bad reviews. I can stand for my own beliefs and I don't really care if my employer or anybody else thinks otherwise. If your app sucks I'm going to tell you so. If your app is mallware I'm going to go to extreme lengths to get it blacklisted.
So many times I've found a buggy app and reported it to the developer before I left a review of the app. If the response is positive, I'm willing to help out with any more information necessary to get the bug fixed and rate the app based on the post-fix performance. If the response is negative and dismissive, I will rate the app based on the buggy state.
Recently I had a couple conversations with the developer of a Windows Phone app, Jack of Tools. There was a bug when I was using it on Windows Phone 8, and I reported it using the feedback. We emailed back and forth, he sent me a beta copy to test if it was fixed, and the next day that fix was pushed into the store and I gave it the 5-star rating the app deserved.
This isn't always possible — for small apps, sure. But for apps with millions of users (many of which have tiny / no support team), the nth user report isn't helpful and ends up taking time away from fixing the issue.
If it's a Microsoft app, I will rate it based on its performance at the time of the latest release. They should know better, and have more resources to catch these things before release. In the example I cited, I was willing to bet the author didn't have a WP8 device to test on, and I was using the app problem free on WP7. Microsoft or other giant publishers should have these resources, you are correct.
You group people who don't want to pay and post negative reviews, which is abusive, with those who legitimately rate an app based on its current state. The paying customer is not your beta tester or QA-departnent. If they help you fix bugs: good for you. But you have to take responsibility for the product you release.
It's one thing if you release a buggy product. It's another if there's a surprise OS update and it breaks something in your app and you haven't been able to update it immediately.
That was not my intention. I posted several negative ratings myself. The point is not to stop negative reviews - my point was that if you're being truthful in your review, then you rarely need anonymity because the truth is on your side.
Think about car drivers versus pedestrians - car drivers are more likely to yell and curse without reason, because for them the risk of doing so is lower.
If you're being a anonymous jackass, then in the context of an app store this can really hurt an otherwise good app and the developers that are trying to build a good business. Anonymity plays an important role here, because in the real world and on the Internet when you hear or read other people's opinions, you tend to take those opinions with a grain of salt. For example, whenever I post an article on my blog, the second most page for the day is the About page.
An "app store" is different from the Internet at large or from the real world, because an app store is not distributed and because those reviews are used in the search rankings within the app store in a totally dumb way. Problematic is that the reputation of a reviewer or the quality of a review, or the relationship you may have with the reviewer (acquaintance, similar user, etc...) aren't currently taken into account. A review such as "this app sucks" shouldn't have the same weight as a review which explains with a fine level of detail why the app sucks. A review from somebody I know or from somebody that's similar to me shouldn't have the same weight as somebody I don't know.
And yet, that's the status quo right now and both positive and negative reviews represent the truth, determining the success of apps, even though rating is mostly subjective and context dependent.
And I absolutely hate the lack of a feedback cycle. At the very least developers should be allowed to respond to negative reviews with messages such as ... "this was fixed in version XX", or "we are sorry, but the app cannot do that due to platform restrictions", or whatever. I also want to be contacted by the developers, because when posting a negative review I do so because of 2 reasons:
(1) I want to warn others about the dangers ahead, in which case I want to change/delete my review in case whatever I said was not true or was definitely fixed
(2) a negative review is actually better than total indifference and many times when I post the review I do so out of sadness that the app is close to being what I want, but the suckiness is so annoying that I cannot use it, so of course I want to know when that gets fixed
It's worth pointing out that the Internet at large does not suffer from these same problems. People complain that filtering out the noise on the Internet is problematic, but for all the problems associated with its distributed nature and black-SEO, the impression you get about a product when searching on Google tends to be a lot more fair.
if you're being truthful in your review, then you rarely need anonymity because the truth is on your side.
How does a third-party, reading your reviews, know that you are telling the truth or not? From the outside, you may sound like an hypercritical annoyance when, in fact, your reviews are completely justified and possibly even understated.
I think this is not significantly different from the dangers of sound bites in politics; too much context is lost when someone searches your name and finds all of these reviews.
An "app store" is different from the Internet at large or from the real world, because an app store is not distributed and because those reviews are used in the search rankings within the app store in a totally dumb way.
That is a valid concern, but I think the anonymity is a flawed solution. Meta-reviewing (Was this review helpful?) and other systems are more adequate and don't have the same drawbacks.
There is a chance, in fact, that since tech-savvy users are more likely to be worried about online privacy, that this could increase the proportion of review that are by people who don't know what they are doing, and don't care about posting stupid reviews under their real name.
I think he's basing that on recent history. There's been a fair amount of privacy issues that have gotten a lot of press and attention in the "tech" corners of the internet, but been either ignored or immediately forgotten by the population at large.
My guess at the reason behind this would be that, in general, "threats" to online privacy are not exactly overt; one needs a certain degree of knowledge about what is going on under the hood to even understand that one's privacy is being violated (understanding the implementation of cookies, flash cookies, referrer links, social plugins, etc etc etc is hardly trivial for someone not interested in the details of tech for other reasons).
You are really on point. recently, one of my apps "Cooking Conversions" was featured on Amazon "Free App of the Day". Can you imagine my app got "1-star" reviews because "there are too many conversions" and also because "it is not a game".
http://www.amazon.com/WhichMan-INC-Cooking-Conversions/produ...
How is the overall "star" rating compiled? Is it simply an average of every rating?
I think a hybrid system using Amazon's "Was this review helpful" to add weight to each review. If it's obviously a garbage review, people would vote down the individual review, thus giving lower weight to how it effects the overall average.
Reading some of those reviews, it doesn't appear that people are complaining about the number of conversions, rather they don't understand why you included unit conversions that don't make sense in the context your app claims to target. Which actually seems like a legitimate criticism, IMO.
Not to mention that units get merrily mixed up. Quoting one review, "For example, if you have 1 honey, that's 1.44 grams per cubic centimeter, but if you have 10 honey, that's 14.4 grams per cubic centimeter (more dense than lead)." Err, wut?
But at least I learned that there are 2000 egg yolks in 80 PSI.
This is not a good thing because Google Plus ties way too much together that it will actually discourage users from leaving reviews especially those that were originally going to write honest and negative reviews, they may want to do so less given their identity is exposed.
Next thing you know Google is going to tie the Youtube commenting with Google Plus too.
Just another desperate attempt to increase page views for Google Plus.
There is no such a thing as a negative "honest" review. Competitors (and clueless users) always pile up negative reviews while companies with huge budgets add fake "positive" reviews
The correct way to do this would have been to make anonymity optional, then rank anonymous reviews lower than those with identity. Google knows how to rank stuff.
I don't hesitate to give apps 1 star if they're not useful to me for whatever mundane reason. My primary use of the review system is to use it for my own later reference, and to get better personal recommendations on apps that I like.
Say I'm looking for a mapping application and one doesn't even have data for where I live, or some other attribute that would cause me not to consider it in 6 months when I look for mapping apps again.
I do the same for restaurant reviews, I might give one 1 star even though it serves palatable food, just not the kind I like.
By doing so the recommendation algorithms that harvest my feedback have access to both positive and negative feedback pertinent to me to give me better future results.
That's how those kinds of scoring systems work best, not by averaging everyone's scores and pretending we're all robots that (dis)like the same things.
What you're saying is true, which is why reviews are context-dependent.
E.g. this user lives in Germany, so his review has more weight for Germans. This user likes Indian food so his review has more weight for people that also like Indian food.
Well that would be the ideal. But then you need the ranking process to know something about you, at which point you can't really work with real anonymity. Maybe Google could hide the real names and profiles of people that want to remain anonymous, but use their profile in the ranking they are doing.
Sometimes the provider might design their star rating system purely as a consumption experience, not as a recommendation signal. Not every product has the data or reasons to use star ratings as recommendation inputs, and I'd expect that most people look at star ratings next to an item and use that as a quick gauge of whether it's good or not.
Assuming the amount of traffic (drive-by glances) is considerable, compared to the number of times you personally get recommended something. Should users submit star ratings for their own purposes, rather than the greater good? I think there are several arguments for "no", but the murkiness is the real catch. If people think their stars are being used for Netflix-style "We think you would rate this 4 stars", but the only actual use of them is to show other people how the product ranks on an arbitrary scale, then both sides lose.
I actually have never thought of that. Seems like Google has created a ratings system that both the general public uses for comparing apps, developers use to determine place in the Play store (as well as overall experience), and Google uses for recommendations.
What if you downloaded an app that you thought it was what you were looking for (without actually reading the app description), will you still rate it a "1 star"?
This seems positive for developers, extremely negative to users.
For the developers they get more accountability and are able to talk with their users if they want more information. It also might slightly discourage some fake-negative reviews (e.g. anti-competitive reviews).
For users it has all kinds of negative consequences. You will need a G+ account to review at all. You will appear in Google search results (i.e. potential employers can find that you downloaded the Angry Birds app). It will allow developers to both harass reviewers directly (via G+ messages) and indirectly (use G+ information to find them in the telephone book and call them/send them a rude letter/sue them).
All in all it is a mixed bag. I think in general the response to this will be mostly negative. Blizzard tried this with their Battle.net accounts and it resulted in a massive amount of bullying, harassment, and in general problems. They were forced to pull it soon after.
The only way this can be positive for the users is if Google links the developers' Google+ accounts to their Apps. This way they will be held accountable too.
Right now users do not know who the developers behind the Apps are (unless explicitly mentioned in their website, etc.), by linking it to the Google+ profile (here comes my WAG) developers of crappy, spammy and clone apps can be made accountable, and consequently reducing the number of overall bogus/lame apps in the Android ecosystem.
I completely agree. I'm not a developer of Android apps, just a user. No longer will I post a negative review, for the reasons you mentioned. This will have the unintended side effect of reducing the quality of reviews and that is a very bad thing for Android users.
There are advantages for readers as well. Assuming it will work like Google Local, then reviews from people you are connected to will be emphasized, and if you wonder about a specific review you can see a profile of the reviewer. Does he hate all Mexican food places, or only this one?
The direct disadvantages are for the reviewers, who are the ones who loose anonymity.
Your last statement is incorrect. Blizzard proposed to try it when they rolled out their new version of battle.net in 2010, but they reneged long before release when some people kicked up a gargantuan fuss. The people who opposed it -speculated- that it would result in bullying, harassment, gender-discrimination and other general problems.
I hate this centralized real-life association to a real person deal.
I only use my name here on HN because I feel it's a professional outlet just as much as it is a forum for interesting articles. But I do NOT want to share personal information with some services. The Play store is one of them.
Aha! Now all developers (not just "Top Developers") will be able to communicate with their users! This is most fantastic news. It's always been frustrating for someone to leave a comment and there be absolutely no way to respond to them. This solves that handily.
Not of much help when somebody has hold of your actual identity. I have reached for a much simpler solution instead: not use G+ in the first place. Sadly Google's extension of G+ to all of their property also gradually leaves me avoiding more of Google's products every day.
Curious as to how you would communicate with a user. Do you expect to add that user to a Google+ circle and then send him/her a message. Not really a big G+ user so I'm not sure if a user can get a message from someone if they have not added them mutually to a circle
Good question. I hadn't really thought that far ahead yet, about the most ideal form for a developer to respond to comments - just that there finally will be a method. I suppose, first, that it depends on how Google implements this. There may be comments allowed on the comments left by users, and then the obvious move is for developers to respond there. Otherwise, I suppose the developer could make a G+ post and share it with just the person who commented, or send the user an email if that's an option.
It works like twitter, you type "+username blah blah blah", if you want it to be a completely private message, remove any other people/circles in the share to box.
Why do I care how seriously people take my review of a mobile app? I'm just posting it to help others make a decision about whether to buy/download the app. There's not much in it for me either way. If there is any potential downside at all, even a small one, I'm not going to post a review. I suppose some people care about being a top, respected reviewer, but not most.
Writing a quality review should be all that is needed to add weight to your opinion. Why does it matter if I know it came from Tom Jones in Skokie, IL?
Can such a competitor not create a "Tom Jones in Skokie, IL" Google+ (along with a myriad of other fake accounts) to achieve the same result? Or, is that to difficult for someone with those intentions?
My point is that a good review (not necessarily a "positive" review) is a good review whether I know who gave it or not. Is a detailed review from an anonymous user giving something 2 stars somehow worth less than a one-liner review from a "known" user giving it 5 stars?
That aside, as greyboy already points out, what is going to stop a competitor from creating a fake Google+ account to give that negative review? This move doesn't prevent that hypothetical from happening in any way.
Health applications - a review for an app which allows you to record you stool consistence (for Morbus Crohn) could negatively affect your chances for employment as well as open you to ridicule by others.
"You gave AcmeFamilyPlanner 4/5 stars, Mrs Candidate - say, do you want to have a career or a family?" (Hm, of course this could help remove bad employers from your list of prospective work places ;) )
Politics app. Sex app. Porn app. App about guns. Violent game app. Match.com or OKCupid app.
Pretend you're a school teacher with a few malicious students that have access to Google. This exposes to them what you have privately on your phone, so you're no longer going to rate apps in the ecosystem.
I have one because a lot of tech people are on there and it's easy to get news I don't wanna subscribe to. But given that Google won't allow me to use my actual internet identity of ten years, I've merely got the account set up as a first name and an indistinguishable initial. Google have done a fantastic job in alienating me as a user. What's hilarious is that the name I want to use and wouldn't mind associating with my G+ reviews is the same name that I use on my email account. Google apparently doesn't care though, so no reviews from me either.
There are so many issues here, and a big one is the misconception that forcing people to use their legal name (or in Google's case, their "name-shaped name") will somehow improve the "quality" of comments. Not only has that been demonstrated to be untrue[1], but it also hurts people who have quite valid reasons (including personal desire) to keep their names or personas separated.
One other thing to keep in mind: it is not the name which is used that changes how you speak, so much as the context in which you speak. For example, a lot of sites started forcing "Facebook only" and noticed a change in user discussion/comments; I'd argue that this change was less the display name someone used, and more the fact that their discussion became viewable by people outside the scope of the non-Facebook website. Think about how context matters: if you are (for example) homosexual and closeted to your family, would you change what you wrote, knowing it could be shared with them?
There are many many more elements to this, and yet the bottom line is I think that not only do these moves by Google reflect incompetence at the executive level and a clear disconnect with the real needs of real people, but they also demonstrate a lack of respect for the things people need most online: agency and free speech.
I've spoken publicly at several conferences about this, and am now working to establish a "NymRights" working group within NSTIC, an online standards organization. If you're interested in this issue, volunteer!
I actually like this. I think (hope) it will force people to put a bit more thought into their reviews. Anonymity with reviews is unproductive for the developer and brings down the quality of a store.
EDIT: However when companies like Enfour publicly slate those who leave bad reviews, maybe keeping their name private is a good thing.
I've written some fantastic reviews. Why am I being punished by an unproven notion? This doesn't help anyone. It's merely a terrible marketing ploy to further push G+.
Just another way to artificially inflate the "daily active users" and signup numbers for Google+. Hey Larry, Google+ is dead, and it's about time you stopped ramming it down people's throats.
Don't believe me? Go to a bar and tell someone you've just met to add you on Google+ when they go home. Are they done laughing at you yet? Oh, they've walked away already? Told ya so.
My understanding was that that's only available with Google Apps for Business, but that article seems to contradict that. With that said, I don't see the option to enable Google+ on my free Google Apps account.
You can enable it in the control panel, under 'Organization & users'. It's listed as Google+ but appears alphabetically after all the other Google things.
I used to write reviews all the time. Mostly to help developers and help other Android users who have the same device as me. As a result of this move, I no longer write reviews in the Play Store. Great work Google, you helped everyone other than those that matter!
That will definitely stop reviews from people with funny non-latin letters in their names who are still reluctant to join g+. I know they say the problem is not there anymore, but my gmail account is far more important than an app review. I can wait.
The only losers to Google's inconsiderate decision to remove choice from the consumer will be the developers... I will not be be leaving feedback now; so what next? Google gonna stop me installing 'andapps' from Play Store if I don't comply and accept their manipulation?... Google will eventually back-peddle on its decision to expose users personal details without, at least, the option not to reveal personal detail.
bad_user
"This is a good thing"... Your opinion only and not consensus.
bad_user
"and I do not agree that it is negative for users."... Your opinion only, and you do not 'speak' for others... remember your place!
It was exactly the same story that I posted 6 hours earlier than bornhuetter. I even took the time and added some more related links. Why do I get downvoted for my comment here? I don't get it.
Often I see reviews such as "love the app but it's crashing sometimes since I upgraded to ICS 2 days ago, so I gave it 1 star". Don't get me wrong, it happened to me too on my iPad when I upgraded to iOS 6, but I simply sent an email to the developers, asking them whether a fix is going to come in the next day or two and they replied back promptly that I should wait for a fix later that day. The result of this interaction was a 4-star review and a happy user.
The sentiment of self-entitlement in some users is absolutely amazing, especially for free apps. I also see lots of reviews such as - "the app sucks because it displays ads and to get rid of ads you must pay". Well, if you're a cheap bastard, there's nothing wrong with that (I'm a cheap bastard too), but have the decency to stand up to your beliefs.
A negative review can really damage the reputation of an app. It can be used by your competition to lower your rankings and it can be used by bored people that have nothing to do other than to piss on the work of other people.
Anonymity has its place but I don't think it has a place in the app store. Many developers don't have the marketing budget of bigger companies, so they can't generate enough good reviews to bury the bad ones. Fake reviews are also harder to generate. This can't be bad for users.
And contrary to what other people say, nothing is going to stop me from posting bad reviews. I can stand for my own beliefs and I don't really care if my employer or anybody else thinks otherwise. If your app sucks I'm going to tell you so. If your app is mallware I'm going to go to extreme lengths to get it blacklisted.