Show Posts
A comment would be fine.
Hello,
The written reviews are quite a recent option and their number is growing at the moment, soon it will reach half of the overall number of ratings. We do not guarantee fast answers from the experts, but usually if you reach them via the social networks, links to those most of experts have on their profiles, they react to the changes faster. We want to also remind you that noone would change their rating for a better one if they see threats and swears coming from ICOs teams.
If you have any proof of an expert taking money or providing services in exchange for rating or review, please send it to info@icobench.com
Thank you.
The written reviews are quite a recent option and their number is growing at the moment, soon it will reach half of the overall number of ratings. We do not guarantee fast answers from the experts, but usually if you reach them via the social networks, links to those most of experts have on their profiles, they react to the changes faster. We want to also remind you that noone would change their rating for a better one if they see threats and swears coming from ICOs teams.
If you have any proof of an expert taking money or providing services in exchange for rating or review, please send it to info@icobench.com
Thank you.
The project seems very nice, but I have a problem:
you allow your network of experts to rate the ICOs without providing any kind of textual information.
You do realize that having no minimum characters limit and having no audit for the quality of some of these experts' reviews raises a lot of doubt about the quality of your ratings?
Some "experts" write their reviews and, when asked by the ICO to update it because the ICO has updated their team, etc, they ignore them.
This is also problematic as it could suggest that the experts' review could've been paid by an ICO competitor, fighting for funding with a similar idea, etc.
Now, thanks to you guys not caring about the quality of those expert reviews, these "experts" can manipulate ratings for various kinds of purposes: personal, monetary, etc.
I really dislike this and I find ICOBench rather suspicious as there's no review quality audit and a reviewer isn't required to reassess his rating after an ICO asks him to for good reasons.
you allow your network of experts to rate the ICOs without providing any kind of textual information.
You do realize that having no minimum characters limit and having no audit for the quality of some of these experts' reviews raises a lot of doubt about the quality of your ratings?
Some "experts" write their reviews and, when asked by the ICO to update it because the ICO has updated their team, etc, they ignore them.
This is also problematic as it could suggest that the experts' review could've been paid by an ICO competitor, fighting for funding with a similar idea, etc.
Now, thanks to you guys not caring about the quality of those expert reviews, these "experts" can manipulate ratings for various kinds of purposes: personal, monetary, etc.
I really dislike this and I find ICOBench rather suspicious as there's no review quality audit and a reviewer isn't required to reassess his rating after an ICO asks him to for good reasons.
Hey guys,
you've misunderstood my question. The problem IS that you allow experts to post text-less reviews, just ratings-only.
This seems fishy as the expert is NOT required to provide any textual information to explain his ratings, which means - they can rate ICOs without any effort, just by selecting random numbers that seem fit.
A review is worth nothing if it has no text. Look at Amazon products' reviews, etc.
Are you going to force the ICO reviews to have at least 200 character requirement to make sure "exports" don't cheat?
