Five stars, Zero trust

Five stars used to mean something. People still read reviews before buying software. They just don’t trust them the way they used to. And no, this isn’t about fake reviews or obvious scams. Those are easy to spot. The real problem is more uncomfortable. The review economy didn’t collapse. It slowly drifted away from its original purpose.

User reviews began as authentic buyer guidance, but they’ve morphed into strategic assets for businesses. Scroll through any app store or e-commerce site: everything is “top-rated” and lavished with praise. If every product gleams with a 4.8/5 rating, those stars start to lose their meaning. 

Consumers aren’t fooled, in fact, the share of people who trust online reviews as much as personal recommendations plummeted from nearly 80% in 2020 to just 42% in 2025 

We read the glowing comments, but we’ve learned to read between the lines.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol' founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It's free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

It’s not hard to see why trust has eroded. Companies have figured out that great reviews drive sales, so they’ve turned the whole system into a numbers game. High ratings aren’t just social proof now, they’re a growth tactic.  In other words, more stars = more money. So of course businesses are chasing stars like their life depends on it. And in a way, it does.

Gaming the system

Behind the scenes, many companies actively engineer their review scores. One common tactic is to time the ask just right. For instance, some businesses send out a Net Promoter Score (NPS) survey to gauge your sentiment “How likely are you to recommend us?”

If you rate them a 9 or 10 (a promoter), you’re immediately nudged to post a public review. If you give a lukewarm or low score, the feedback form quietly thanks you and never mentions writing a review at all. 

Only the happiest customers get the gentle push to “Share your experience!” This practice is so widespread it even has a name: “review gating.” 

It’s essentially filtering which customers get invited to leave a review based on their initial feedback. Platforms officially frown on it (Google outright forbids “selectively soliciting positive reviews”), but behind closed doors it remains a growth hacker’s favorite trick.

Then there’s the outright incentivization. Perhaps you’ve received an email offering a discount, gift card, or free month of service in exchange for writing a review. It’s framed as a thank-you for your time, of course – “Share your honest feedback and get 10% off your next purchase!” – but the intent is clear. 

In an economy of fake praise, even regulators have had to step in to remind everyone that trust isn’t a commodity to be bought. Companies know how to play the game from the other side too: suppressing negativity. 

Unhappy customer feedback is quietly diverted to support teams or private channels, where it can be resolved (or simply contained) out of public view. The result is a skewed reality, a glossy wall of five-star testimonials that obscure any hint of dissatisfaction. It’s a great sales tool. It’s terrible for the truth.

Algorithms crave stars (and money)

Why go to such lengths to manicure the ratings? Because the platforms themselves reward it. The algorithms that sort and highlight products aren’t trying to surface the most truthful review; they’re trying to maximize engagement and conversion. 

High ratings and large volumes of reviews make people more likely to click “Buy Now.” That means more conversion for sellers and more commission for the marketplace. In other words, the algorithm is biased toward whatever boosts the platform’s monetization metrics. 

A bunch of five-star reviews isn’t just ego bait,  it’s algorithm bait.

Think about it: products with a 4.7-star average and hundreds of reviews tend to appear at the top of search results and recommendation lists. They convert better, so the system pushes them more. 

More visibility leads to more sales, which reinforces the high ranking. It’s a feedback loop powered by positive feedback (pun intended). If a vendor can game their way into that virtuous cycle, via perfectly timed prompts or purchased praise, the platform’s code will happily amplify them. 

Authenticity doesn’t earn you a top slot; performance does. The incentive is clear: keep it positive, and keep it plentiful. In the review economy, volume and sentiment are king.

Worse, some marketplaces have blurred the line between genuine high-rated listings and paid placement. It’s an open secret that many platforms offer sponsored spots or pay-to-play schemes, think “featured” placements, ads masquerading as top picks, or vendor subscriptions that subtly boost visibility. 

Money talks, even if it speaks over the voice of authentic customer feedback. (To be fair, a few holdouts still refuse to monetize their review rankings or sell out their star system, but they’re the exception, not the rule).

How buyers adapt

Consumers aren’t sitting idly by in this charade. We’ve become savvy at sniffing out over-polished BS. The modern buyer knows how the game is played, and many are adapting their behavior to cope with the broken review system.

First, there’s a migration of trust to private networks and off-platform channels. Instead of relying on the star-average on a marketplace, people turn to friends, colleagues, and niche communities for real advice. 

Think about the last time you were unsure about a purchase, maybe you shot a quick message to a group chat, or asked in a private Slack channel, “Hey, has anyone used this product? Is it actually any good?” Personal recommendations feel reliable again, precisely because they’re not part of the public review circus. 

Second, savvy consumers cross-check everything. Rather than trusting one site’s reviews, they compare across multiple sources, the product might be 4.8 on the official store, but what’s it rated elsewhere? 

Is there a discrepancy between the slick website testimonials and the chatter on Reddit? More often than not, shoppers now triangulate information. In fact, three out of four people use two or more sites when reading reviews, rather than putting all their faith in one platform’s word. We instinctively seek a consensus of truth across the noise.

Finally, many have decided the best judge is themselves. “Try before you buy” has made a comeback as a defense against dubious reviews. Free trials, freemium tiers, generous return policies, consumers leverage them all to test products firsthand. 

If a software platform promises the world in its curated testimonials, a savvy buyer will take the 14-day free trial and see if it lives up to the hype. In sectors like enterprise software, where choices are costly and critical, buyers might run a pilot program or proof-of-concept rather than trust glossy case studies. Essentially, experience has become the new review. 

A crisis and an opportunity

All this has serious implications for platforms and software marketplaces. These businesses built their empires on user-generated trust, turning customer opinion into a key part of the shopping experience.

If that trust evaporates, the model cracks. We’re already seeing the early signs: users skipping the review tab, or treating every five-star rating with a healthy dose of skepticism. 

If the review economy continues on its current path, platforms risk becoming mere transaction processors rather than trust brokers.

For the marketplaces, this is both a crisis and an opportunity. The crisis is obvious: loss of credibility. If people no longer believe what they read on your platform, they’ll seek validation elsewhere, and your influence over purchase decisions diminishes. 

But the opportunity lies in reform. Platforms could double down on authenticity as a feature, verifying purchases, cracking down harder on fraudulent and incentivized reviews, and highlighting more qualitative, nuanced feedback instead of simple star counts. 

There’s even a chance to innovate with new trust signals (some are experimenting with things like verified buyer badges, AI analysis for suspicious patterns, or weighted ratings that account for reviewer reputation). The platforms that find ways to genuinely restore faith in their review systems will win back weary consumers. Those that don’t will see their communities drift away, bit by bit.

Importantly, not all platforms have given in to the dark side. A handful still refuse pay-for-play tactics, no paid reviews, no under-the-table boosting of rankings for advertisers. 

These holdouts demonstrate that integrity in reviews is possible, even if it means slower growth in the short term. 

In the end, the broken review economy is forcing a rebalance of how we decide what to trust. Buyers are adapting, finding new ways to cut through the noise. And the platforms that once thrived on being the ultimate source of truth in purchasing may have to rethink their approach if they want to stay relevant. 

Trust, once lost, is hard to regain. The five-star system doesn’t shine as bright as it used to; perhaps it’s time for the next evolution in how we share and earn trust online.