一项深度研究揭示了电商平台大众评审机制的运作现状与存在的问题。1该研究基于某互联网平台2021年推出的大众评审机制，对24位评审员进行了访谈，这些评审员的年龄分布在18岁至35岁之间。1在该机制下，评审员通过匿名投票决定差评是否"适合展示"，采取简单多数表决方式形成最终结果。1
研究发现，评审员在裁决商家与消费者的评价纠纷时存在三类主要问题。1具体包括虚构判断依据、审查证据不严以及差评衡量有误。1评审员普遍主要依据生活经验和语言态度作出判断。针对这些问题，研究建议评审员将生活经验限定在理解案内事实的范围内，加重商家证明责任，并中立判断差评的参考价值，在事实基础上作出更加公正的判断。1
A research study has examined how public review panels operate on e-commerce platforms, analyzing the decision-making processes of young arbiters who settle disputes between merchants and consumers over negative reviews.1 The research was based on a public adjudication mechanism launched by an internet platform in 2021, with interviews conducted among 24 panelists aged between 18 and 35 years old.1
Under this system, panelists cast anonymous votes to determine whether negative reviews are "suitable for display," with decisions reached through simple majority voting.1 However, the investigation identified three significant problems in how panelists approach their role: fabricating justifications for their judgments, conducting insufficiently rigorous evidence reviews, and applying inconsistent standards when evaluating the relevance of negative reviews.1 Researchers found that panelists primarily rely on personal life experience and assessment of language tone when making determinations, yet often lack a solid factual foundation for their conclusions.1
The study recommends that panelists restrict the application of personal experience to understanding case facts alone, place greater burden of proof on merchants to substantiate their claims, and maintain neutrality when assessing the reference value of negative reviews.1 This approach, researchers suggest, would encourage panelists to base their decisions on evidence rather than assumptions, thereby improving the fairness and accuracy of the adjudication process.1
评论
还没有评论，欢迎留下第一条。