Social proof is to give credibility, reviews are to make decisions. This is for social proof. Also, by definition social proof is positive or else it wouldn't be valuable.

It's an easier way to source all of those testimonials that people have on their website and really cool because it shows that people "like me" value the product. If they do their job right, you could have a testimonial that is more valueable than anything you could have sourced yourself because you are surfacing that diamond in the rough. Especially if you a big brand with thousands, or millions, of people tweeting at you.

Cool prooduct, nice work guys.

Social proof just means herd behavior where animals that don't know what to do in some novel situation simply take cues from their peers and do what everyone else is doing. There is nothing at all inherently positive about that. Just in humans, mob behavior, witch burning and pitchforks and all that, are all examples of people acting on social proof.

In fact, the exact opposite concept of this could exist, scrape Twitter for consumers to show them who they shouldn't do business with, and it would still be social proof.

Sorry, I am using social proof in the business context, not the academic context. When people use it in a business context, they typically mean "I don't know if I can trust this company, therefore, I can use my friends/community/peers to see if this company has built trust with someone I also trust."

Again, in this context, a company will always seek out positive social proof.

Thanks! Couldn't put in a better way.

What you said about social proof is absolutely true! It is the relevancy that helps people make a decision and through credibility it is even easier.

Can you be more little more specific?

The tweets we suggest are high-signal and we believe it will help your product, newsletter or whatever you are selling.

I believe they mean something like... you're filtering for only positive reviews (best for your customers) rather than unbiased perspectives (so that humans are best served by unfiltered truth)

So the company is able to "lie" to potential customers.

How companies manipulate Glassdoor is an interesting case study

True. Our algorithm decides which ones are the best shoutouts you can use and we suggest it to you.

My hunch is most of society wants trusted and unbiased reviews rather than filtering or manipulation.

I doubt there is more money in that direction though

We believe the same. In the age of information overload building credibility on the Internet is tough. That's why we are building Shoutout. It will dig the unbiased positive shoutouts and help creators, startups build credibility.

Personally, from a consumer perspective I'm not convinced postive reviews are actually that useful, vetted or nor.

E.g. on Amazon I ended up only ever reading 3 star reviews. Not for their positivity or negativity, but because they often point out some shortcomming of the product that might or might not effect me. Say some audio hardware not supporting some MIDI feature. I might not care about it at all, or it is a dealbreaker. I have made more pruchase decision based on those reviews than positive ones. For the latter what usually lacks is knowledge about the context, the use case they have.

> It will dig the unbiased positive shoutouts

If you filter for positive shoutouts only, the result becomes strongly biased by definition :).

This right here, this is what OP is failing to understand.

It's hard to make someone understand something when their salary depends on not understanding it.

If it's just positive reviews on a website, i skip it as low information.

Tweet compilations actually decrease trust for me if they are on a website. Twitter sucks overall and bringing obviously filtered tweets is a turnoff.

As a consumer in both business and general, I want third parties who give unbiased reviews, covering multiple vendors / products which solve my problem. This is why genuine influencer marketing is doing well. I actually spend a fair amount of time on youtube looking at reviews and finding trustworthy sources there. They need to point out flaws and put some products down do gain that trust

Agree with this strongly. If Steve from Gamers Nexus, Jeff from Athlean X, Wendell from L1 Techs, Greg from Stronger by Science, say a product is good, I'll believe it. I've followed them for years and know them and trust them. Random Twitter users, no matter how many there appear to be, not so much.

How does this filter even assure that these are real accounts and not bots or a Serbian click farm selling positive impressions?

Step 1, buy tweets for reviews

Step 2, use tweets for marketing

No, you don't "believe the same", because you only accept positively-biased reviews.

These are not meant to be reviews. It's just social proof showing that other people like the product to build trust.

Since they're Tweets it's also theoretically organic, which is even better.

Agree with you. Also we are not asking anyone to form any behavior. People naturally give shoutouts to others(depends on their work) and we believe it should be used to our leverage instead of buried deep under these social platforms. That's where Shoutout comes in picture.

This is for advertising, not review aggregation. Those are two very different things.

Double the market: sell positive tweets to sellers, and negative tweets to shoppers.