> Bad reviews on Amazon lead to faked good ones.
>
> Bad reviews on Glassdoor lead to faked good ones.
>
> Bad reviews on Yelp lead to faked good ones.
Where do you get the idea that bad reviews somehow cause faked good ones? If these web sites allow fake reviews, why shouldn’t we expect fake good reviews just because fake good reviews make money for vendors?
This is how books work: The authors or publishers get other authors to give them good reviews that appear on the book jacket. Nobody waits around for a bad review before lining up good reviews.
> Sometimes bad reviews are not fair or heavily exaggerated, sometimes bad reviews
> are from competitors. Bad reviews cannot be removed. Sometimes, faked good reviews
> is the only way to bring back a balanced view.
There is zero value in a merchant’s self-assessment of what constitutes a “balanced” view. I don’t know what you are saying here.
> So, this seems to happen everywhere and to be the natural response of a
> self-regulating market. Means that we should be careful with user generated
> content in general, also users might have an hidden agenda.
A “market” where bad and good actors can lie without consequences is a terrible market. It is in no way representative of how markets in general work or ought to work. “Self-regulating markets” are nearly always terrible.
> Edit: Why the downvote? I am not saying that I like this, I just tried to find an
> explanation for a market behavior.
You appear to be saying that everything is fine with markets full of fraud. I suggest to you that most of the things you describe as an explanation, most people consider deep, deep problems that will eventually render these markets useless.
Try reframing your explanation as problems that need solving for these markets to thrive.