[ANN] Lina.Review | Community-Driven Review Platform | TGE Event 15th Jan

[Wylie330]

Anyone who loves online shopping customer and consumers is likely to see an online review about the product and services they want to purchase but some of those doesn't trust online rating or reviews.

What about applcations we see in apple store and playstore? Each application has their own ratings and reviews. I wonder who might be the reviewers behind every rating they get, are they from a review company of just been done individually by clients or users? Me my self even if i am asked to rate and review i dont do.

Me too. I feel lazy to make a review if they ask me to do. Because I don't think that as necessary. But then I realized how important to give feedback.

[jlaw007]

"7. Whenever a user clicks submit a review, the review details will be recorded on the
Lina Core private blockchain. Note that the review could be subject to being
approved by Lina.review staff or by votes from Helpers."
If reviews are subject to Lina.review staff's approval or by votes of Helpers, does that mean quality reviews are equivalent to positive reviews only?

Lina.review's staff can continuously assess a review and assessing it means that they're checking the credibility of an review, whether it's a positive or negative review, the important thing that matters is the accuracy of the said review.

Is there a possibility that a big company can bribe this LINA>REVIEW company?
well there is so many money involve around all over the world when it comes to product reviews.
there are so many fake reviews that we can read. it just the matter of money.
I hope LINA will never go down and destroy their company's credibility.

Could possibly happen. Though they cannot bribe Lina I think because it is a blockchain but i read somewhere in their whitepaper that advertisers/merchants interacts with helpers. I was thinking also maybe this way that they interact which means they communicate, could also be a possible way to bribe the helpers. What do you think about it?

What do you think about the process of submitting a review then having it be approved by lina staff or helpers?

They are being careful so that reviews on the site would only be quality reviews.

But doesn't that process mean that the results will not be transparent?

It only means that some of the reviews are not good enough or doesn't meet the standards of a critic.

That would make it seem that they are manipulating the results since not all reviews submitted can be seen.

review could be subject to being approved by Lina.review staff or by votes from Helpers.

They did not say that that they will be hiding the reviews if not approved.

That is what is implied by "could be subject to being approved" What's the point of having that process if you can't do something about reviews that will not be approved?

Whenever a user clicks on the ads link, the click will be recorded on the Lina Core
private blockchain.
7. Whenever a user clicks submit a review, the review details will be recorded on the
Lina Core private blockchain.

The clicks will be recorded, clicks on ads, clicks on submit a review. That's the point of it being on blockchain. Everything can be traced.

So I click on an ad, then made a review then click submit, then it's subject for approval. If it's not got enough, it won't be approved? What will happen to reviews submitted but not approved? Will they still be part of the score?

This is an example walk-through of a bid for advertising request from a Merchant and the
reward sharing flows:

This is just an example, it could be subject to change. They did not specify if the review will actually be hidden if not approved. They did not specify anything except that it "could be" subject for approval.

They should answer the question on what will happen if a review is not approved. Why not approve a review in the first place? What are the criteria for a good review? What are the things that would make your review not approved?

A white paper is just a proposal. They did their research and come up with what they think is the best for this project. I think what's on their mind  is the ability to moderate the reviews so that the review site would be a good environment.

What if someone makes an honest review and it does not get approved? That would be unfair!

Honest review might not be a good review. Lina is creating new standards in the review industry, so someone shouldn't just be honest or simply share their opinion. It should be matching the new standards of lina review.

The standardization that I read on the wp only involves adding specific criteria for a subject. That is basic and sort of mandatory part of the site since it would be included in the part you fill out when submitting a review. What if it still doesn't get approved?

That might be a part to be improved since they did not write anything about that. The common resolution to that is the ability to reverse it or to be able to follow up on a review if it's not approved.

The wp stated that reputation management is done by hiding bad reviews, resulting in users losing trust and the system losing credibility. Them doing that would make them the same as others since they will have control over the approval of reviews and control over the result. It gives them the ability to hide bad reviews.

I agree on the part that they should not hide bad reviews but some reviews might be of low quality, or spam? Should all reviews be approved, then?

I believe all reviews should be approved. They are recording it in blockchain, so they should just approve them all. All reviews are recorded, why not approve them all?

If all reviews are approved, even low quality reviews are available to be seen, and how about spam? What if a user is proven to be writing spam reviews to make the results of a product appear better or worse?

All reviews being available is what makes it transparent. That's the point of basing it on blockchain, for it to be transparent and immutable.

If you include spam reviews in the result, that would make the result inaccurate and the site not trustworthy. The result would be transparent but still biased.

I think it's better if all reviews are approved, then in case a review seems to be spam or not credible, there should just be a report to mod button like bct or mark as spam like in fb. Reported reviews should still be available to be seen but not included in the score.

That actually seems better. Reported reviews should be reversible, too, just in case they make it that way.

"Subject for approval" is really vague. They should have planned that part better.

I beleive it is cleary stated that it is “Subject for approval” in business term its is Being dependent or conditional upon something, as in subject to shareholder approval.Being under the dominion or authority, as of a sovereign, authority, or government, as in subject to the boss's whims.-Business Dictionary. I hope this will clear up any confusion you have in mind. In short they have the authority to approve or to decline the review before they published it on their website.

What I meant is what will happen afterwards? A review is subject for approval, a.) if approved, then the review will be posted, good b.) if NOT approved, then what?

[magz]

There’s quite a long conversation here. I can see you are enjoying talking about this review platform as if it is your first time encountering this kind of system. Well, Its been said review system is not new but powered by blockchain maybe.

Lol! There should also be a review system that should review lina.review too so advertisers and merchants could know which review system to trust.  

Is there any review system like Lina existing right now? Because Lina is the only one I knew. That is why I am amazed at the idea of the project.

There are. If you read their Whitepaper it says there that there are review systems also but not blockchain based and the problem is that is fraud prone. Like big companies can pay for positive reviews and they also can pay reviewers to give negative reviews to their competitors as well as paying also to remove negative reviews. Which make this review system untrustworthy and unreliable.

Lina.Review is the first blockchain based review system that will help us eliminate fraud and will give us trusted and high quality reviews.

[ZeidFreak]

"7. Whenever a user clicks submit a review, the review details will be recorded on the
Lina Core private blockchain. Note that the review could be subject to being
approved by Lina.review staff or by votes from Helpers."
If reviews are subject to Lina.review staff's approval or by votes of Helpers, does that mean quality reviews are equivalent to positive reviews only?

Lina.review's staff can continuously assess a review and assessing it means that they're checking the credibility of an review, whether it's a positive or negative review, the important thing that matters is the accuracy of the said review.

Is there a possibility that a big company can bribe this LINA>REVIEW company?
well there is so many money involve around all over the world when it comes to product reviews.
there are so many fake reviews that we can read. it just the matter of money.
I hope LINA will never go down and destroy their company's credibility.

Could possibly happen. Though they cannot bribe Lina I think because it is a blockchain but i read somewhere in their whitepaper that advertisers/merchants interacts with helpers. I was thinking also maybe this way that they interact which means they communicate, could also be a possible way to bribe the helpers. What do you think about it?

What do you think about the process of submitting a review then having it be approved by lina staff or helpers?

They are being careful so that reviews on the site would only be quality reviews.

But doesn't that process mean that the results will not be transparent?

It only means that some of the reviews are not good enough or doesn't meet the standards of a critic.

That would make it seem that they are manipulating the results since not all reviews submitted can be seen.

review could be subject to being approved by Lina.review staff or by votes from Helpers.

They did not say that that they will be hiding the reviews if not approved.

That is what is implied by "could be subject to being approved" What's the point of having that process if you can't do something about reviews that will not be approved?

Whenever a user clicks on the ads link, the click will be recorded on the Lina Core
private blockchain.
7. Whenever a user clicks submit a review, the review details will be recorded on the
Lina Core private blockchain.

The clicks will be recorded, clicks on ads, clicks on submit a review. That's the point of it being on blockchain. Everything can be traced.

So I click on an ad, then made a review then click submit, then it's subject for approval. If it's not got enough, it won't be approved? What will happen to reviews submitted but not approved? Will they still be part of the score?

This is an example walk-through of a bid for advertising request from a Merchant and the
reward sharing flows:

This is just an example, it could be subject to change. They did not specify if the review will actually be hidden if not approved. They did not specify anything except that it "could be" subject for approval.

They should answer the question on what will happen if a review is not approved. Why not approve a review in the first place? What are the criteria for a good review? What are the things that would make your review not approved?

A white paper is just a proposal. They did their research and come up with what they think is the best for this project. I think what's on their mind  is the ability to moderate the reviews so that the review site would be a good environment.

What if someone makes an honest review and it does not get approved? That would be unfair!

Honest review might not be a good review. Lina is creating new standards in the review industry, so someone shouldn't just be honest or simply share their opinion. It should be matching the new standards of lina review.

The standardization that I read on the wp only involves adding specific criteria for a subject. That is basic and sort of mandatory part of the site since it would be included in the part you fill out when submitting a review. What if it still doesn't get approved?

That might be a part to be improved since they did not write anything about that. The common resolution to that is the ability to reverse it or to be able to follow up on a review if it's not approved.

The wp stated that reputation management is done by hiding bad reviews, resulting in users losing trust and the system losing credibility. Them doing that would make them the same as others since they will have control over the approval of reviews and control over the result. It gives them the ability to hide bad reviews.

I agree on the part that they should not hide bad reviews but some reviews might be of low quality, or spam? Should all reviews be approved, then?

I believe all reviews should be approved. They are recording it in blockchain, so they should just approve them all. All reviews are recorded, why not approve them all?

If all reviews are approved, even low quality reviews are available to be seen, and how about spam? What if a user is proven to be writing spam reviews to make the results of a product appear better or worse?

All reviews being available is what makes it transparent. That's the point of basing it on blockchain, for it to be transparent and immutable.

If you include spam reviews in the result, that would make the result inaccurate and the site not trustworthy. The result would be transparent but still biased.

I think it's better if all reviews are approved, then in case a review seems to be spam or not credible, there should just be a report to mod button like bct or mark as spam like in fb. Reported reviews should still be available to be seen but not included in the score.

That actually seems better. Reported reviews should be reversible, too, just in case they make it that way.

"Subject for approval" is really vague. They should have planned that part better.

I beleive it is cleary stated that it is “Subject for approval” in business term its is Being dependent or conditional upon something, as in subject to shareholder approval.Being under the dominion or authority, as of a sovereign, authority, or government, as in subject to the boss's whims.-Business Dictionary. I hope this will clear up any confusion you have in mind. In short they have the authority to approve or to decline the review before they published it on their website.

What I meant is what will happen afterwards? A review is subject for approval, a.) if approved, then the review will be posted, good b.) if NOT approved, then what?

I think it would turn out to be like this review posted > subject for approval - if approve posted - if its under investigation and it didn't qualify because of some factors like contents of the review is not properly elaborated or its not enough to justify the score or the rating the reviewer gave, his review will be send back to him to be completed and only be posted when the said issues are satisfied.

[tatalin]

"7. Whenever a user clicks submit a review, the review details will be recorded on the
Lina Core private blockchain. Note that the review could be subject to being
approved by Lina.review staff or by votes from Helpers."
If reviews are subject to Lina.review staff's approval or by votes of Helpers, does that mean quality reviews are equivalent to positive reviews only?

Lina.review's staff can continuously assess a review and assessing it means that they're checking the credibility of an review, whether it's a positive or negative review, the important thing that matters is the accuracy of the said review.

Is there a possibility that a big company can bribe this LINA>REVIEW company?
well there is so many money involve around all over the world when it comes to product reviews.
there are so many fake reviews that we can read. it just the matter of money.
I hope LINA will never go down and destroy their company's credibility.

Could possibly happen. Though they cannot bribe Lina I think because it is a blockchain but i read somewhere in their whitepaper that advertisers/merchants interacts with helpers. I was thinking also maybe this way that they interact which means they communicate, could also be a possible way to bribe the helpers. What do you think about it?

What do you think about the process of submitting a review then having it be approved by lina staff or helpers?

They are being careful so that reviews on the site would only be quality reviews.

But doesn't that process mean that the results will not be transparent?

It only means that some of the reviews are not good enough or doesn't meet the standards of a critic.

That would make it seem that they are manipulating the results since not all reviews submitted can be seen.

review could be subject to being approved by Lina.review staff or by votes from Helpers.

They did not say that that they will be hiding the reviews if not approved.

That is what is implied by "could be subject to being approved" What's the point of having that process if you can't do something about reviews that will not be approved?

Whenever a user clicks on the ads link, the click will be recorded on the Lina Core
private blockchain.
7. Whenever a user clicks submit a review, the review details will be recorded on the
Lina Core private blockchain.

The clicks will be recorded, clicks on ads, clicks on submit a review. That's the point of it being on blockchain. Everything can be traced.

So I click on an ad, then made a review then click submit, then it's subject for approval. If it's not got enough, it won't be approved? What will happen to reviews submitted but not approved? Will they still be part of the score?

This is an example walk-through of a bid for advertising request from a Merchant and the
reward sharing flows:

This is just an example, it could be subject to change. They did not specify if the review will actually be hidden if not approved. They did not specify anything except that it "could be" subject for approval.

They should answer the question on what will happen if a review is not approved. Why not approve a review in the first place? What are the criteria for a good review? What are the things that would make your review not approved?

A white paper is just a proposal. They did their research and come up with what they think is the best for this project. I think what's on their mind  is the ability to moderate the reviews so that the review site would be a good environment.

What if someone makes an honest review and it does not get approved? That would be unfair!

Honest review might not be a good review. Lina is creating new standards in the review industry, so someone shouldn't just be honest or simply share their opinion. It should be matching the new standards of lina review.

The standardization that I read on the wp only involves adding specific criteria for a subject. That is basic and sort of mandatory part of the site since it would be included in the part you fill out when submitting a review. What if it still doesn't get approved?

That might be a part to be improved since they did not write anything about that. The common resolution to that is the ability to reverse it or to be able to follow up on a review if it's not approved.

The wp stated that reputation management is done by hiding bad reviews, resulting in users losing trust and the system losing credibility. Them doing that would make them the same as others since they will have control over the approval of reviews and control over the result. It gives them the ability to hide bad reviews.

I agree on the part that they should not hide bad reviews but some reviews might be of low quality, or spam? Should all reviews be approved, then?

I believe all reviews should be approved. They are recording it in blockchain, so they should just approve them all. All reviews are recorded, why not approve them all?

If all reviews are approved, even low quality reviews are available to be seen, and how about spam? What if a user is proven to be writing spam reviews to make the results of a product appear better or worse?

All reviews being available is what makes it transparent. That's the point of basing it on blockchain, for it to be transparent and immutable.

If you include spam reviews in the result, that would make the result inaccurate and the site not trustworthy. The result would be transparent but still biased.

I think it's better if all reviews are approved, then in case a review seems to be spam or not credible, there should just be a report to mod button like bct or mark as spam like in fb. Reported reviews should still be available to be seen but not included in the score.

That actually seems better. Reported reviews should be reversible, too, just in case they make it that way.

"Subject for approval" is really vague. They should have planned that part better.

I beleive it is cleary stated that it is “Subject for approval” in business term its is Being dependent or conditional upon something, as in subject to shareholder approval.Being under the dominion or authority, as of a sovereign, authority, or government, as in subject to the boss's whims.-Business Dictionary. I hope this will clear up any confusion you have in mind. In short they have the authority to approve or to decline the review before they published it on their website.

What I meant is what will happen afterwards? A review is subject for approval, a.) if approved, then the review will be posted, good b.) if NOT approved, then what?

I think it would turn out to be like this review posted > subject for approval - if approve posted - if its under investigation and it didn't qualify because of some factors like contents of the review is not properly elaborated or its not enough to justify the score or the rating the reviewer gave, his review will be send back to him to be completed and only be posted when the said issues are satisfied.

reviews will be very tough if it goes like that because the process takes long the if they cannot justify their ratings the it forms a loop if the system goes by what you say. But the quality of the reviews will be much higher and more detailed if its need a lot of prerequisites to be published surely fraud and fake posting of reviews will be eliminated.

[Yooshijin]

"7. Whenever a user clicks submit a review, the review details will be recorded on the
Lina Core private blockchain. Note that the review could be subject to being
approved by Lina.review staff or by votes from Helpers."
If reviews are subject to Lina.review staff's approval or by votes of Helpers, does that mean quality reviews are equivalent to positive reviews only?

Lina.review's staff can continuously assess a review and assessing it means that they're checking the credibility of an review, whether it's a positive or negative review, the important thing that matters is the accuracy of the said review.

Is there a possibility that a big company can bribe this LINA>REVIEW company?
well there is so many money involve around all over the world when it comes to product reviews.
there are so many fake reviews that we can read. it just the matter of money.
I hope LINA will never go down and destroy their company's credibility.

Could possibly happen. Though they cannot bribe Lina I think because it is a blockchain but i read somewhere in their whitepaper that advertisers/merchants interacts with helpers. I was thinking also maybe this way that they interact which means they communicate, could also be a possible way to bribe the helpers. What do you think about it?

What do you think about the process of submitting a review then having it be approved by lina staff or helpers?

They are being careful so that reviews on the site would only be quality reviews.

But doesn't that process mean that the results will not be transparent?

It only means that some of the reviews are not good enough or doesn't meet the standards of a critic.

That would make it seem that they are manipulating the results since not all reviews submitted can be seen.

review could be subject to being approved by Lina.review staff or by votes from Helpers.

They did not say that that they will be hiding the reviews if not approved.

That is what is implied by "could be subject to being approved" What's the point of having that process if you can't do something about reviews that will not be approved?

Whenever a user clicks on the ads link, the click will be recorded on the Lina Core
private blockchain.
7. Whenever a user clicks submit a review, the review details will be recorded on the
Lina Core private blockchain.

The clicks will be recorded, clicks on ads, clicks on submit a review. That's the point of it being on blockchain. Everything can be traced.

So I click on an ad, then made a review then click submit, then it's subject for approval. If it's not got enough, it won't be approved? What will happen to reviews submitted but not approved? Will they still be part of the score?

This is an example walk-through of a bid for advertising request from a Merchant and the
reward sharing flows:

This is just an example, it could be subject to change. They did not specify if the review will actually be hidden if not approved. They did not specify anything except that it "could be" subject for approval.

They should answer the question on what will happen if a review is not approved. Why not approve a review in the first place? What are the criteria for a good review? What are the things that would make your review not approved?

A white paper is just a proposal. They did their research and come up with what they think is the best for this project. I think what's on their mind  is the ability to moderate the reviews so that the review site would be a good environment.

What if someone makes an honest review and it does not get approved? That would be unfair!

Honest review might not be a good review. Lina is creating new standards in the review industry, so someone shouldn't just be honest or simply share their opinion. It should be matching the new standards of lina review.

The standardization that I read on the wp only involves adding specific criteria for a subject. That is basic and sort of mandatory part of the site since it would be included in the part you fill out when submitting a review. What if it still doesn't get approved?

That might be a part to be improved since they did not write anything about that. The common resolution to that is the ability to reverse it or to be able to follow up on a review if it's not approved.

The wp stated that reputation management is done by hiding bad reviews, resulting in users losing trust and the system losing credibility. Them doing that would make them the same as others since they will have control over the approval of reviews and control over the result. It gives them the ability to hide bad reviews.

I agree on the part that they should not hide bad reviews but some reviews might be of low quality, or spam? Should all reviews be approved, then?

I believe all reviews should be approved. They are recording it in blockchain, so they should just approve them all. All reviews are recorded, why not approve them all?

If all reviews are approved, even low quality reviews are available to be seen, and how about spam? What if a user is proven to be writing spam reviews to make the results of a product appear better or worse?

All reviews being available is what makes it transparent. That's the point of basing it on blockchain, for it to be transparent and immutable.

If you include spam reviews in the result, that would make the result inaccurate and the site not trustworthy. The result would be transparent but still biased.

I think it's better if all reviews are approved, then in case a review seems to be spam or not credible, there should just be a report to mod button like bct or mark as spam like in fb. Reported reviews should still be available to be seen but not included in the score.

That actually seems better. Reported reviews should be reversible, too, just in case they make it that way.

"Subject for approval" is really vague. They should have planned that part better.

I beleive it is cleary stated that it is “Subject for approval” in business term its is Being dependent or conditional upon something, as in subject to shareholder approval.Being under the dominion or authority, as of a sovereign, authority, or government, as in subject to the boss's whims.-Business Dictionary. I hope this will clear up any confusion you have in mind. In short they have the authority to approve or to decline the review before they published it on their website.

What I meant is what will happen afterwards? A review is subject for approval, a.) if approved, then the review will be posted, good b.) if NOT approved, then what?

I think the devs should answer that. But if I were to answer that, there is no point in having pre-approval posts because it will look like the reviews are being filtered or being manipulated. I think it's a great idea that all reviews will be posted but Lina's team will just give ratings to those reviews that look like trustworthy.

[avadonne]

"7. Whenever a user clicks submit a review, the review details will be recorded on the
Lina Core private blockchain. Note that the review could be subject to being
approved by Lina.review staff or by votes from Helpers."
If reviews are subject to Lina.review staff's approval or by votes of Helpers, does that mean quality reviews are equivalent to positive reviews only?

Lina.review's staff can continuously assess a review and assessing it means that they're checking the credibility of an review, whether it's a positive or negative review, the important thing that matters is the accuracy of the said review.

Is there a possibility that a big company can bribe this LINA>REVIEW company?
well there is so many money involve around all over the world when it comes to product reviews.
there are so many fake reviews that we can read. it just the matter of money.
I hope LINA will never go down and destroy their company's credibility.

Could possibly happen. Though they cannot bribe Lina I think because it is a blockchain but i read somewhere in their whitepaper that advertisers/merchants interacts with helpers. I was thinking also maybe this way that they interact which means they communicate, could also be a possible way to bribe the helpers. What do you think about it?

What do you think about the process of submitting a review then having it be approved by lina staff or helpers?

They are being careful so that reviews on the site would only be quality reviews.

But doesn't that process mean that the results will not be transparent?

It only means that some of the reviews are not good enough or doesn't meet the standards of a critic.

That would make it seem that they are manipulating the results since not all reviews submitted can be seen.

review could be subject to being approved by Lina.review staff or by votes from Helpers.

They did not say that that they will be hiding the reviews if not approved.

That is what is implied by "could be subject to being approved" What's the point of having that process if you can't do something about reviews that will not be approved?

Whenever a user clicks on the ads link, the click will be recorded on the Lina Core
private blockchain.
7. Whenever a user clicks submit a review, the review details will be recorded on the
Lina Core private blockchain.

The clicks will be recorded, clicks on ads, clicks on submit a review. That's the point of it being on blockchain. Everything can be traced.

So I click on an ad, then made a review then click submit, then it's subject for approval. If it's not got enough, it won't be approved? What will happen to reviews submitted but not approved? Will they still be part of the score?

This is an example walk-through of a bid for advertising request from a Merchant and the
reward sharing flows:

This is just an example, it could be subject to change. They did not specify if the review will actually be hidden if not approved. They did not specify anything except that it "could be" subject for approval.

They should answer the question on what will happen if a review is not approved. Why not approve a review in the first place? What are the criteria for a good review? What are the things that would make your review not approved?

A white paper is just a proposal. They did their research and come up with what they think is the best for this project. I think what's on their mind  is the ability to moderate the reviews so that the review site would be a good environment.

What if someone makes an honest review and it does not get approved? That would be unfair!

Honest review might not be a good review. Lina is creating new standards in the review industry, so someone shouldn't just be honest or simply share their opinion. It should be matching the new standards of lina review.

The standardization that I read on the wp only involves adding specific criteria for a subject. That is basic and sort of mandatory part of the site since it would be included in the part you fill out when submitting a review. What if it still doesn't get approved?

That might be a part to be improved since they did not write anything about that. The common resolution to that is the ability to reverse it or to be able to follow up on a review if it's not approved.

The wp stated that reputation management is done by hiding bad reviews, resulting in users losing trust and the system losing credibility. Them doing that would make them the same as others since they will have control over the approval of reviews and control over the result. It gives them the ability to hide bad reviews.

I agree on the part that they should not hide bad reviews but some reviews might be of low quality, or spam? Should all reviews be approved, then?

I believe all reviews should be approved. They are recording it in blockchain, so they should just approve them all. All reviews are recorded, why not approve them all?

If all reviews are approved, even low quality reviews are available to be seen, and how about spam? What if a user is proven to be writing spam reviews to make the results of a product appear better or worse?

All reviews being available is what makes it transparent. That's the point of basing it on blockchain, for it to be transparent and immutable.

If you include spam reviews in the result, that would make the result inaccurate and the site not trustworthy. The result would be transparent but still biased.

I think it's better if all reviews are approved, then in case a review seems to be spam or not credible, there should just be a report to mod button like bct or mark as spam like in fb. Reported reviews should still be available to be seen but not included in the score.

That actually seems better. Reported reviews should be reversible, too, just in case they make it that way.

"Subject for approval" is really vague. They should have planned that part better.

I beleive it is cleary stated that it is “Subject for approval” in business term its is Being dependent or conditional upon something, as in subject to shareholder approval.Being under the dominion or authority, as of a sovereign, authority, or government, as in subject to the boss's whims.-Business Dictionary. I hope this will clear up any confusion you have in mind. In short they have the authority to approve or to decline the review before they published it on their website.

What I meant is what will happen afterwards? A review is subject for approval, a.) if approved, then the review will be posted, good b.) if NOT approved, then what?

I think it would turn out to be like this review posted > subject for approval - if approve posted - if its under investigation and it didn't qualify because of some factors like contents of the review is not properly elaborated or its not enough to justify the score or the rating the reviewer gave, his review will be send back to him to be completed and only be posted when the said issues are satisfied.

reviews will be very tough if it goes like that because the process takes long the if they cannot justify their ratings the it forms a loop if the system goes by what you say. But the quality of the reviews will be much higher and more detailed if its need a lot of prerequisites to be published surely fraud and fake posting of reviews will be eliminated.

If there are good side bad sides also can occur in this matter the harder and longer time of posting the reviews can affect the interest of some people because it will consume more time than the previous traditional unfiltered review system, but im sure the integration of review system into the blockchain would resolve this issue if the system would turn out to be like this very strict in posting reviews. yes we would like the words of devs in this matter on how will the transparency be displayed

[xamil]

The project promises to be interesting and new! i hope the usability of the token will improve in the future，I hope will develop further after crowd-sale !

Me too. I hope their token will benefit me also. I already had collected some considerable amount of tokens from different ICOs and most of them are dormant. Some are not even listed in exchanges. 

don't be afraid, after the token sale, for sure everyone of us who join and support this project will benefit on it. we just need to gave all of our full support on this project until the end of this project.

[djmixen]

Anyone who loves online shopping customer and consumers is likely to see an online review about the product and services they want to purchase but some of those doesn't trust online rating or reviews.

What about applcations we see in apple store and playstore? Each application has their own ratings and reviews. I wonder who might be the reviewers behind every rating they get, are they from a review company of just been done individually by clients or users? Me my self even if i am asked to rate and review i dont do.

Me too. I feel lazy to make a review if they ask me to do. Because I don't think that as necessary. But then I realized how important to give feedback.

i think its important before we download an application to review it first because for me that is the way on how we recognize  the application and how to use it, but i will give a feedback after i try the application and if the review about it is correct.

[Elel]

Anyone who loves online shopping customer and consumers is likely to see an online review about the product and services they want to purchase but some of those doesn't trust online rating or reviews.

What about applcations we see in apple store and playstore? Each application has their own ratings and reviews. I wonder who might be the reviewers behind every rating they get, are they from a review company of just been done individually by clients or users? Me my self even if i am asked to rate and review i dont do.

Me too. I feel lazy to make a review if they ask me to do. Because I don't think that as necessary. But then I realized how important to give feedback.

i think its important before we download an application to review it first because for me that is the way on how we recognize  the application and how to use it, but i will give a feedback after i try the application and if the review about it is correct.

What is funny is even if the application is only few months old you will already see 4.5 star ratings  . How could that be? I can still remember skype after having a bad video conversation with someone, review slot will right away appear after the call. How can i give a 5 star rate if i had a bad call experience during that time? Sometimes it is not the application that is the problem, sometimes it is just the internet connection but just because i was disgusted i give them poor rating.

[Bitbratt]

Anyone who loves online shopping customer and consumers is likely to see an online review about the product and services they want to purchase but some of those doesn't trust online rating or reviews.

That is true! Many consumers and customers relied on others advice and recommendations before purchasing things and make a reservation decision. That's why many people are looking for a reliable and trustworthy review site. We all know that review industry is shrouded in fraud and scam most of the honest and correct reviews are being deleted and tampered by fake reviews.

based on an online study and research that about 40-60% of review are fake. One positive and honest review can attract about 3-5 new customer to buy or purchase products while one negative review can discourage 6-12 people.

yes I agree with the statement above, even with a thousand of positive review if a few bad review concerning even the slightest mistake for example in online shops if the problem is on the couriers fault the end blame is still on the seller and that review may destroy the reputation of the seller drastically and potential customers may be reduced due to a review like that.

That is why category is very important. Review must be done specifically and categorically. It would be unfair to give a certain company a negative ratings just because the delivery company failed to deliver in expected time and date. O just rate a hotel with 0 or 1 or negative just because the food they served didnt fit your taste.

[Bitbitchy]

Anyone who loves online shopping customer and consumers is likely to see an online review about the product and services they want to purchase but some of those doesn't trust online rating or reviews.

What about applcations we see in apple store and playstore? Each application has their own ratings and reviews. I wonder who might be the reviewers behind every rating they get, are they from a review company of just been done individually by clients or users? Me my self even if i am asked to rate and review i dont do.

i think its from their company who did all the review to the application that we can sometimes download to our phone. but its our choice if we can use the application because after we download and use it then we found out that the application is useful or not, they don't even also say the truth about the review of the application.

In this case what i have in my mind is, selling of reviews indeed exist. How can a 5 month old application gain such a high rating when it is only few months old since been created? I think this what lina.review wants to avoid. Selling and buying reviews and review fraud.

[Wallflower28]

Is there any review system like Lina existing right now? Because Lina is the only one I knew. That is why I am amazed at the idea of the project.

There are! there are many reviewers online as it is one source of earnings over the internet.

Though LINA.REVIEW is a unique one, because it is based with cryptocurrency.

The review will be screened and filter by many helpers and lina itself. this is the first review company online.

seems like there are many advantages of lina.review that other reviews, so meaning it will be most useful than others because of the reviews that the helpers do and gave the transparency of every product that they reviews.

Absolutely yes! I have been 4 years in online shopping but it seems like there is no such thing as true reviews. All of them are filtered, all of reviews are fraud! I am thankful that lina exist and hoping that we will use this new system of review in the future!

[MetalBall]

It is so easy for the companies to manipulate their online review to increase their sales. Because of that Lina will help us to examine whether a certain review is fake or not. But my question is this, what are you going to do if you found out that that review is a fake and no basis, will you delete it?

I dont think it can't be easily deleted because everything that will be in the lina platform will be saved on the lina's blockchain. I think they will give the review a negative feedback or delete the user on their server.

[jlaw007]

The project is a great idea, but reading some parts of it, it needs more research to become successful. It's a lot and it's well thought of already, but there's still a lot to be improved.

[ConquerGold]

The project is a great idea, but reading some parts of it, it needs more research to become successful. It's a lot and it's well thought of already, but there's still a lot to be improved.

Well, many projects are like that. The project is obviously still in the developmental stage. Usually it's still mid stage on release.

[jlaw007]

The project is a great idea, but reading some parts of it, it needs more research to become successful. It's a lot and it's well thought of already, but there's still a lot to be improved.

Well, many projects are like that. The project is obviously still in the developmental stage. Usually it's still mid stage on release.

There are some basics that they missed out, and many stuff that would "depend on configuration" or "could be". They do have an mvp but it wasn't really market attractive.

[ConquerGold]

The project is a great idea, but reading some parts of it, it needs more research to become successful. It's a lot and it's well thought of already, but there's still a lot to be improved.

Well, many projects are like that. The project is obviously still in the developmental stage. Usually it's still mid stage on release.

There are some basics that they missed out, and many stuff that would "depend on configuration" or "could be". They do have an mvp but it wasn't really market attractive.

They can't just focus on that part. They probably need to finish technical stuffs first. They are probably still gathering funds and only finished basic stuff like smart contracts and the tokens. You can't finish the Lina core blockchain or the lina bridge in one day. That mvp is just an example, creating the real interactive one wouldn't be in one day, too.

[jlaw007]

"7. Whenever a user clicks submit a review, the review details will be recorded on the
Lina Core private blockchain. Note that the review could be subject to being
approved by Lina.review staff or by votes from Helpers."
If reviews are subject to Lina.review staff's approval or by votes of Helpers, does that mean quality reviews are equivalent to positive reviews only?

Lina.review's staff can continuously assess a review and assessing it means that they're checking the credibility of an review, whether it's a positive or negative review, the important thing that matters is the accuracy of the said review.

Is there a possibility that a big company can bribe this LINA>REVIEW company?
well there is so many money involve around all over the world when it comes to product reviews.
there are so many fake reviews that we can read. it just the matter of money.
I hope LINA will never go down and destroy their company's credibility.

Could possibly happen. Though they cannot bribe Lina I think because it is a blockchain but i read somewhere in their whitepaper that advertisers/merchants interacts with helpers. I was thinking also maybe this way that they interact which means they communicate, could also be a possible way to bribe the helpers. What do you think about it?

What do you think about the process of submitting a review then having it be approved by lina staff or helpers?

They are being careful so that reviews on the site would only be quality reviews.

But doesn't that process mean that the results will not be transparent?

It only means that some of the reviews are not good enough or doesn't meet the standards of a critic.

That would make it seem that they are manipulating the results since not all reviews submitted can be seen.

review could be subject to being approved by Lina.review staff or by votes from Helpers.

They did not say that that they will be hiding the reviews if not approved.

That is what is implied by "could be subject to being approved" What's the point of having that process if you can't do something about reviews that will not be approved?

Whenever a user clicks on the ads link, the click will be recorded on the Lina Core
private blockchain.
7. Whenever a user clicks submit a review, the review details will be recorded on the
Lina Core private blockchain.

The clicks will be recorded, clicks on ads, clicks on submit a review. That's the point of it being on blockchain. Everything can be traced.

So I click on an ad, then made a review then click submit, then it's subject for approval. If it's not got enough, it won't be approved? What will happen to reviews submitted but not approved? Will they still be part of the score?

This is an example walk-through of a bid for advertising request from a Merchant and the
reward sharing flows:

This is just an example, it could be subject to change. They did not specify if the review will actually be hidden if not approved. They did not specify anything except that it "could be" subject for approval.

They should answer the question on what will happen if a review is not approved. Why not approve a review in the first place? What are the criteria for a good review? What are the things that would make your review not approved?

A white paper is just a proposal. They did their research and come up with what they think is the best for this project. I think what's on their mind  is the ability to moderate the reviews so that the review site would be a good environment.

What if someone makes an honest review and it does not get approved? That would be unfair!

Honest review might not be a good review. Lina is creating new standards in the review industry, so someone shouldn't just be honest or simply share their opinion. It should be matching the new standards of lina review.

The standardization that I read on the wp only involves adding specific criteria for a subject. That is basic and sort of mandatory part of the site since it would be included in the part you fill out when submitting a review. What if it still doesn't get approved?

That might be a part to be improved since they did not write anything about that. The common resolution to that is the ability to reverse it or to be able to follow up on a review if it's not approved.

The wp stated that reputation management is done by hiding bad reviews, resulting in users losing trust and the system losing credibility. Them doing that would make them the same as others since they will have control over the approval of reviews and control over the result. It gives them the ability to hide bad reviews.

I agree on the part that they should not hide bad reviews but some reviews might be of low quality, or spam? Should all reviews be approved, then?

I believe all reviews should be approved. They are recording it in blockchain, so they should just approve them all. All reviews are recorded, why not approve them all?

If all reviews are approved, even low quality reviews are available to be seen, and how about spam? What if a user is proven to be writing spam reviews to make the results of a product appear better or worse?

All reviews being available is what makes it transparent. That's the point of basing it on blockchain, for it to be transparent and immutable.

If you include spam reviews in the result, that would make the result inaccurate and the site not trustworthy. The result would be transparent but still biased.

I think it's better if all reviews are approved, then in case a review seems to be spam or not credible, there should just be a report to mod button like bct or mark as spam like in fb. Reported reviews should still be available to be seen but not included in the score.

That actually seems better. Reported reviews should be reversible, too, just in case they make it that way.

"Subject for approval" is really vague. They should have planned that part better.

I beleive it is cleary stated that it is “Subject for approval” in business term its is Being dependent or conditional upon something, as in subject to shareholder approval.Being under the dominion or authority, as of a sovereign, authority, or government, as in subject to the boss's whims.-Business Dictionary. I hope this will clear up any confusion you have in mind. In short they have the authority to approve or to decline the review before they published it on their website.

What I meant is what will happen afterwards? A review is subject for approval, a.) if approved, then the review will be posted, good b.) if NOT approved, then what?

I think it would turn out to be like this review posted > subject for approval - if approve posted - if its under investigation and it didn't qualify because of some factors like contents of the review is not properly elaborated or its not enough to justify the score or the rating the reviewer gave, his review will be send back to him to be completed and only be posted when the said issues are satisfied.

reviews will be very tough if it goes like that because the process takes long the if they cannot justify their ratings the it forms a loop if the system goes by what you say. But the quality of the reviews will be much higher and more detailed if its need a lot of prerequisites to be published surely fraud and fake posting of reviews will be eliminated.

If there are good side bad sides also can occur in this matter the harder and longer time of posting the reviews can affect the interest of some people because it will consume more time than the previous traditional unfiltered review system, but im sure the integration of review system into the blockchain would resolve this issue if the system would turn out to be like this very strict in posting reviews. yes we would like the words of devs in this matter on how will the transparency be displayed

What's really not good about it is it was presented in the flowchart, but only says [users>click(on ad)>record click>Lina core] and [users>submit review>record review>Lina core]. Even review results are not in the chart.

[ConquerGold]

"7. Whenever a user clicks submit a review, the review details will be recorded on the
Lina Core private blockchain. Note that the review could be subject to being
approved by Lina.review staff or by votes from Helpers."
If reviews are subject to Lina.review staff's approval or by votes of Helpers, does that mean quality reviews are equivalent to positive reviews only?

Lina.review's staff can continuously assess a review and assessing it means that they're checking the credibility of an review, whether it's a positive or negative review, the important thing that matters is the accuracy of the said review.

Is there a possibility that a big company can bribe this LINA>REVIEW company?
well there is so many money involve around all over the world when it comes to product reviews.
there are so many fake reviews that we can read. it just the matter of money.
I hope LINA will never go down and destroy their company's credibility.

Could possibly happen. Though they cannot bribe Lina I think because it is a blockchain but i read somewhere in their whitepaper that advertisers/merchants interacts with helpers. I was thinking also maybe this way that they interact which means they communicate, could also be a possible way to bribe the helpers. What do you think about it?

What do you think about the process of submitting a review then having it be approved by lina staff or helpers?

They are being careful so that reviews on the site would only be quality reviews.

But doesn't that process mean that the results will not be transparent?

It only means that some of the reviews are not good enough or doesn't meet the standards of a critic.

That would make it seem that they are manipulating the results since not all reviews submitted can be seen.

review could be subject to being approved by Lina.review staff or by votes from Helpers.

They did not say that that they will be hiding the reviews if not approved.

That is what is implied by "could be subject to being approved" What's the point of having that process if you can't do something about reviews that will not be approved?

Whenever a user clicks on the ads link, the click will be recorded on the Lina Core
private blockchain.
7. Whenever a user clicks submit a review, the review details will be recorded on the
Lina Core private blockchain.

The clicks will be recorded, clicks on ads, clicks on submit a review. That's the point of it being on blockchain. Everything can be traced.

So I click on an ad, then made a review then click submit, then it's subject for approval. If it's not got enough, it won't be approved? What will happen to reviews submitted but not approved? Will they still be part of the score?

This is an example walk-through of a bid for advertising request from a Merchant and the
reward sharing flows:

This is just an example, it could be subject to change. They did not specify if the review will actually be hidden if not approved. They did not specify anything except that it "could be" subject for approval.

They should answer the question on what will happen if a review is not approved. Why not approve a review in the first place? What are the criteria for a good review? What are the things that would make your review not approved?

A white paper is just a proposal. They did their research and come up with what they think is the best for this project. I think what's on their mind  is the ability to moderate the reviews so that the review site would be a good environment.

What if someone makes an honest review and it does not get approved? That would be unfair!

Honest review might not be a good review. Lina is creating new standards in the review industry, so someone shouldn't just be honest or simply share their opinion. It should be matching the new standards of lina review.

The standardization that I read on the wp only involves adding specific criteria for a subject. That is basic and sort of mandatory part of the site since it would be included in the part you fill out when submitting a review. What if it still doesn't get approved?

That might be a part to be improved since they did not write anything about that. The common resolution to that is the ability to reverse it or to be able to follow up on a review if it's not approved.

The wp stated that reputation management is done by hiding bad reviews, resulting in users losing trust and the system losing credibility. Them doing that would make them the same as others since they will have control over the approval of reviews and control over the result. It gives them the ability to hide bad reviews.

I agree on the part that they should not hide bad reviews but some reviews might be of low quality, or spam? Should all reviews be approved, then?

I believe all reviews should be approved. They are recording it in blockchain, so they should just approve them all. All reviews are recorded, why not approve them all?

If all reviews are approved, even low quality reviews are available to be seen, and how about spam? What if a user is proven to be writing spam reviews to make the results of a product appear better or worse?

All reviews being available is what makes it transparent. That's the point of basing it on blockchain, for it to be transparent and immutable.

If you include spam reviews in the result, that would make the result inaccurate and the site not trustworthy. The result would be transparent but still biased.

I think it's better if all reviews are approved, then in case a review seems to be spam or not credible, there should just be a report to mod button like bct or mark as spam like in fb. Reported reviews should still be available to be seen but not included in the score.

That actually seems better. Reported reviews should be reversible, too, just in case they make it that way.

"Subject for approval" is really vague. They should have planned that part better.

I beleive it is cleary stated that it is “Subject for approval” in business term its is Being dependent or conditional upon something, as in subject to shareholder approval.Being under the dominion or authority, as of a sovereign, authority, or government, as in subject to the boss's whims.-Business Dictionary. I hope this will clear up any confusion you have in mind. In short they have the authority to approve or to decline the review before they published it on their website.

What I meant is what will happen afterwards? A review is subject for approval, a.) if approved, then the review will be posted, good b.) if NOT approved, then what?

I think it would turn out to be like this review posted > subject for approval - if approve posted - if its under investigation and it didn't qualify because of some factors like contents of the review is not properly elaborated or its not enough to justify the score or the rating the reviewer gave, his review will be send back to him to be completed and only be posted when the said issues are satisfied.

reviews will be very tough if it goes like that because the process takes long the if they cannot justify their ratings the it forms a loop if the system goes by what you say. But the quality of the reviews will be much higher and more detailed if its need a lot of prerequisites to be published surely fraud and fake posting of reviews will be eliminated.

If there are good side bad sides also can occur in this matter the harder and longer time of posting the reviews can affect the interest of some people because it will consume more time than the previous traditional unfiltered review system, but im sure the integration of review system into the blockchain would resolve this issue if the system would turn out to be like this very strict in posting reviews. yes we would like the words of devs in this matter on how will the transparency be displayed

What's really not good about it is it was presented in the flowchart, but only says [users>click(on ad)>record click>Lina core] and [users>submit review>record review>Lina core]. Even review results are not in the chart.

That part is focused on the advertising bid since that's the title. It's not the submit a review process and also that part is a "could be" so it can't really be included because it's not yet sure.