Hacker News Reader

Comment by harrisonjackson | Hacker News Reader

One of the fake reviews was by someone who had passed away with a picture obtained from their obituary. A moderator who knows an author or book has been flagged could spend a minute to find this out.

It is definitely a difficult problem - I'll agree with you there. There are some other good suggestions in the thread on making it easier to flag the false reviews/moderate reviews beyond "community standards"

I like the idea of using a captcha that prompts you to enter a random word from a random chapter in the book.

Another system could just hide reviews that are not verified - and tie into amazon purchases to verify them - I don't know why Amazon would not lean on the fact that they own Goodreads to do this... Make all the reviews visible if the user prompts to see the unverified ones, but as the default just shows the reviews for people that bought the book through Amazon.

View on HN

Yes, I agree there a few things that could be done to improve, but they all basically involve giving semi-subjective 'weights' as to the reliability of individual reviewers.

E.g. more likely to be genuine if purchased, if not prepublication (except some people really do receive and review books in advance), if has many reviews, if reviews follow common statistical patterns both per-author and per-book, and so on.

The trouble with all of this is just that it's really, really hard to get right. There's a tremendous amount of 'tuning' involved.

It's probably not possible, but it really would be great if someone could come up with some general elegant theory to solve particularly the 'does this reviewer seem statistically trustworthy', in a way that effectively identifies brigading and harrassment, while still allowing for genuine 'oddballs' whose reviews and ratings go against the crowd.

In this specific case, the book isn't even out for advance readers. The literal least goodreads could do is turn off reviews for the book until the author tells them otherwise.

I swear I'm not just meme-ing for the sake of it, but this has always seemed like fundamentally a decentralized trust problem, and one that can potentially be solved by some form of social blockchain.

Basically, instead of an economic currency unit being mined, the value being protected is instead some form of reputational trust-token; 30 seconds of Googling leads to articles like this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shermanlee/2018/08/13/a-decentr...

Thinking about things this way essentially boils the fundamental problem into what IMO is a pretty "general elegant theory", which is simply to construct a properly balanced incentive structure, which asymmetrically disincentivizes "bad" behavior while encouraging "good" behavior, in much the same way that Bitcoin's core ledger-validation/mining abstraction rewards miners for securing the network while also discouraging prohibitively expensive attack scenarios.

I'm not saying it's easy or obvious, but I think this is exactly the sort of decentralized trust problem that blockchains are well-suited for.

> One of the fake reviews was by someone who had passed away with a picture obtained from their obituary. A moderator who knows an author or book has been flagged could spend a minute to find this out.

This is an "obvious in hindsight" example but do we expect mods to google search every single name/photo of every review or comment, and then determine if it's legit or not?

This quickly becomes an escalation game where the effort to identify fakes just gets more and more tedious, and it's been repeatedly proven that trolls have way more time and energy to spend on this game than volunteer moderators, and will simply out-grind them to keep up their harassment.

Any solution that involves putting in more human effort than the trolls is likely to fail.

> I like the idea of using a captcha that prompts you to enter a random word from a random chapter in the book.

1990s DOS games were ahead of their times I guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com