"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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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?

Quote

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.