Google Reviews System: the algorithm on product reviews
Put us to the test!
It is called the Reviews System and it is one of the automatic ranking systems that Google uses in various areas: specifically, it focuses on a very particular type of queries and content because it serves to ensure that users interested in business-related searches find among the results provided by the search engine only (or mostly) content with product reviews that include in-depth and original research, rather than bare texts that simply summarize a series of products. It is therefore literally an algorithm that seeks to evaluate and reward the best content focused precisely on reviews of various things, such as products, services, destinations, games, movies, or other topics, and there are specific directions for adapting site and pages to this update and for writing quality product reviews according to Google.
What is Google’s Reviews System and what implies for review content
Google’s Reviews System aims to better reward high-quality reviews, that is, content that provides in-depth analysis and original research and is written by experts or enthusiasts who know the topic well.
This is how we read on the official Google Search Central page describing the features and operation of this algorithm, released on April 12, 2023 for global application to English, Spanish, German, French, Italian, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Russian, Dutch, Portuguese, and Polish languages.
The reviews system is meant to ensure that people see reviews that share in-depth research, rather than thin content that simply summarizes a range of products, services or other things. From a technical standpoint, it is designed to evaluate articles, blog posts, pages, or similar standalone first-party content written for the purpose of providing a recommendation, opinion, or analysis, and does not evaluate third-party reviews, such as those posted by users in the reviews section of a product or service page.
To better determine the scope of the “review,” Google clarifies that they can be about any topic and focus on a single thing, direct comparison of similar items, or hierarchically ranked lists of recommendations, and “can be reviews of products like laptops or winter jackets, media content like movies or video games, or services and activities like restaurants or fashion brands.”
The history of the algorithm on reviews: it was originally Google Product Reviews system
In fact, as the more observant will recall, the Google Reviews System is not Google’s first intervention focused on content with reviews, and in fact this system is just an extension to more areas of the Google Product Reviews system, originally started in 2021 only for English searches in the United States (and with at least four major updates in the works, as recounted here) and then expanded to other languages (including Italian) in February 2023.
In its initial intentions, the Product Reviews system was an algorithm that sought to bring up in Google’s SERPs the best content focused on “product reviews” alone, that is, those that appear when we search Google for information about a product by typing its name with the term reviews added (e.g., iphone 14 reviews).
In the two years of its application in the U.S., this system has received a lot of attention from SEOs, so we find it useful to propose here the most interesting and useful considerations, which can be equally applied to the new version of the algorithm (which, in practice, only increases the types of content investigated and analyzed).
What are the goals of Google’s update on product reviews
To be clear, the Product Reviews System is not one of the regular or broad core algorithm updates that affects all search results, but an intervention that specifically targets product reviews, reviews of items and various objects.
Yet despite being separate from the regular core updates, tips for producing quality content “are relevant here as well.”
As an overall goal, Google intends “to show users content that provides in-depth analysis and original research, and is written by experts or enthusiasts who know the topic well.”
The product review system works precisely to ensure that people see reviews of products that share in-depth research, rather than thin content that summarizes or simply a series of products or posts bogus reviews (perhaps with information inferred or directly copied from data sheets provided by manufacturers, of which only represent rewritten versions of product specifications).
In practice, this means that Google aims to promote in search result rankings review content that is unique and stands out from that of competitor sites, going beyond most of the template-based information we see on the Web. The intervention is thus designed to “further help those who produce rich content in the area of product reviews,” going to demote (in intentions, at least) pages that instead adopt the discouraged practices.
Reviews with short product summaries are generally found on affiliate sites, which focus more on making quick commissions than providing actual value to users. What Google is trying to bring out now are reviews with “holistic product analysis,” which include, for example, comparisons with similar products or previous versions, or that provide when possible quantitative analysis and any data that can help consumers make a purchase decision.
The intervention is meant to show the most useful and beneficial information possible for users: having verified that people “value product reviews that share in-depth research, rather than meager content that simply summarizes a series of products,” Google designed the update precisely to reward such content and make it stand out better in SERPs.
How the product review system works
From a technical standpoint, the Product Reviews System primarily evaluates product review content at the page level: however, Google’s documentation explains, it could evaluate the entire site and any content if it publishes a significant amount of content with product reviews (something like 10 percent and up of the site’s content are reviews). Conversely, if we don’t have a lot of reviews (i.e., if the bulk of the site consists of other content), it is unlikely that a site-wide evaluation would be performed.
Structured data might help Google better identify whether a piece of content is a product review, but algorithms do not rely on that alone.
In addition, some international analysts-and in particular Lily Ray‘s excellent insight-have pointed out that in the U.S. the Product Reviews system has helped Google reclassify the search intent behind many business and transactional queries, leading to a better understanding of people’s real intentions, to which the SERP now returns a product review in response in the top positions rather than e-Commerce product pages or other types of content (or vice versa, if the user is really ready for action instead).
Who is impacted by the Product Reviews Update
While not a broad core update, therefore, this algorithmic update could still cause some shakeups in SERP, although technically it should only affect product review content and not other types of content, as explained.
Obviously, sites that do not publish product reviews have nothing to worry about, but conversely, sites that publish product reviews (in double-digit percentages of total content) may be affected and should monitor their traffic closely for any out-of-ordinary fluctuations in traffic or rankings.
In any case, its effects impact both ranking in the classic SERPs and performance in Google Discover: from what we can tell, Google’s algorithms do not directly punish product reviews that are deemed to be of lower quality (those that provide sparse content that merely summarizes generic or copied information), but pages that provide such content might notice drops in rankings due to overtaking by other sites, which instead publish more in-depth review content and will therefore get a boost in visibility.
In short: although the effect is similar to that of a penalty, technically it is just a different way Google evaluates sites with better content, which causes sites with better content to emerge with higher rankings, and thus the catch-up work must focus on the quality gap to try to close.
More specifically, the official guide explains that in order to recover from a drop in rankings and traffic caused by the Product Reviews System, a site must make the appropriate corrections to the affected content, of course, and usually wait for the release of a subsequent specific update. In any case, it is worth remembering that Google’s automatic evaluation of content with product reviews is just one of “many factors used to rank content, so changes can occur at any time for various reasons.”
How to write quality product reviews for Google
Let’s now go into the tips and best practices for writing product reviews that are good and of quality, starting again with the theory behind this intervention to get (finally!) to the more practical directions for publishing good, effective and useful content for readers’ needs.
As mentioned, for Google, a product review is of quality if it provides detailed information written “by experts or enthusiasts who know the subject well,” and not if it simply represents a repetition of information already provided by the manufacturer or otherwise data and resources already found elsewhere on the Web.
The search engine’s documentation then presents a specific list of additional useful pointers “for those who create content to consider in terms of product reviews,” which are then used to check whether the content we post on the site meets the features and requirements that Google considers a priority.
First, Google identifies three specific types of “author” who can create a product review page:
- Experienced staff member at a store who guides shoppers between competing products.
- Blogger who provides independent opinions about products.
- Editorial staff member at a news or other site.
How to write high-quality product reviews
Regarding writing advice, Google reminds that the general rules of SEO copywriting and, in particular, the latest guidance defining the usefulness of content always apply.
Specifically, reviews should be written to help people make decisions and to offer them added value: therefore, the basic advice is to focus on the quality and originality of the reviews, not the length, following as many of these writing best practices as possible, which can allow our pages to stand out in Google Search and on other Google platforms:
- We evaluate the product from the user’s point of view.
- We demonstrate knowledge of the products reviewed and specific, specialized expertise in the subject matter.
- We provide evidence in the form of pictures, audio, or other links to our direct experience with the product to demonstrate our expertise and emphasize the authenticity of the review, including showing what the product physically looks like or how it is used, with unique content beyond that provided by the manufacturer.
- We provide quantitative measurements regarding a product’s performance according to various categories.
- We explain how a product differs from the competition.
- We include similar products for consideration or explain which products might be better for certain uses or circumstances.
- We present the pros and cons of a particular product based on our personal research.
- We describe how a product has evolved from previous versions or models to make improvements, solve problems, or otherwise help users make a purchase decision.
- We identify key decision factors for the product’s category and performance in key areas (e.g., a car review might consider fuel economy, safety, and handling as key decision factors and, therefore, might evaluate performance in those areas).
- We describe key choices about how a product is designed and its effect on users beyond the manufacturer’s explanations.
- We include links to other useful resources (personal or from other sites) to help the reader make a decision.
- We consider including links to multiple vendors to offer the reader the opportunity to make purchases from the merchant of his or her choice.
- We include why we think this product is the best by providing direct supporting evidence when we label and recommend a product as the best overall or for a particular purpose.
- We ensure that lists with rankings contain enough useful content to stand on their own, even if we choose to write separate, detailed product reviews for each recommended product.
The value of product reviews
Google’s guide also emphasizes the value of reviews , which as mentioned can be “an excellent resource for shoppers when making a decision,” and for example can make a difference when they are considering which product to buy, because they can guide shoppers among competing products, helping them choose the best brand or model for their needs and budget, especially if they also show what the product physically looks like or how it is used, with unique content in addition to that provided by the manufacturer.
Therefore, the site that publishes content with reviews – whether it is an e-Commerce or a site that specializes in just this type of item-must provide pages that can actually help people learn more about a product or service they are interested in.
And so, more specifically for the area of products, Google urges us to write reviews focusing on quality and originality and not, as mentioned, on a mythical aspect such as word count that has no basis in concreteness, nor on “pattern-based information that you see everywhere on the Web,” so as to offer maximum value to readers.
In addition, the documentation specifies that reviews often use affiliate links “so that if someone finds a review useful and follows the link provided to purchase, the author is rewarded by the vendor”: this mode is legitimate (if done respecting Google’s stance on affiliate programs) and is a possible opportunity for profit and monetization for sites (which, however, must be aware of Google’s attention to this process).
Google Product Reviews, the analysis of attention to product reviews
Going back in time and focusing on the original “Product Reviews System,” the talk further demonstrated Google’s interest in the e-Commerce features of its search engine, both by studying solutions to enrich the experience of users interested in searching for information about products to eventually consider buying them, and with tools designed for sites engaged in sales. Examples include, among others, the Google Shopping storefront made free of charge, the inclusion of popular products in SERPs or guidance on how to improve product information.
Also, in the aforementioned article, Ray identifies a number of potential (and very plausible) reasons why Google launched the product review rating system and devoted so much care to it over time (with at least five major updates in less than 24 months):
- Response to user feedback and bad press
Google itself admits that extensive user testing has shown that “people value product reviews that share in-depth research, rather than thin content that simply summarizes a range of products.” This leads us to speculate that the search engine received such feedback frequently, also associated with articles of various types and sources that negatively criticized the way Search’s algorithms ranked the content of product reviews.
The expert recalls how Dmitri Brereton’s now-famous “Google Search is Dying” post and similar analyses in the New Yorker’s “What Google Search Isn’t Showing You” turned the spotlight on a number of quality issues present in Search-and in particular Kyle Chayka recounts his own negative experience in seeking recommendations for a new toaster oven, which provided in response “aggregate listings clearly designed to manipulate Google’s search algorithm and profit from affiliate marketing.”
Low-quality, poorly written product reviews are rampant, and it is not a <em>good thing</em> for Google to have its algorithms perceived and narrated as shoddy in various media: it is what also prompted the release of Helpful Content System, the broader and more general algorithm that rewards useful content, which is an attempt to curb the presence of pages with content written for the primary purpose of gaining traffic and positions.
- Increase in affiliate sites of various types.
Another possible explanation for Google’s focus on bringing out high-quality product reviews could lie in the significant increase in the number of affiliate sites and blogs that Google is scanning and indexing, which has also led to an increase in low-quality affiliate content. According to the Internet Advertising Bureau, 53 percent of affiliates increased their spending in the channel between 2020 and 2021:
Journalist Nicole Scott, former editor-in-chief of Mobile Geeks, had noticed a decline in the quality of product reviews over time, writing that “it has become a common practice for product review writers to read reviews on Amazon and simply reuse this content as Reviews of our readers or Products our readers like, without actually trying the products themselves,” as can easily be seen by the fact that these articles “lack detailed information about how the products actually work, which could only be obtained by using the item extensively.”
To counter this pejorative drift, Google has specified in best practices some precise guidelines for handling affiliations (e.g., multiple references to actual trials and direct experiences with products).
- The growing threat from Amazon
In the background then is always the challenge with Amazon, Google’s increasingly direct competitor, which has responded with a number of significant changes to its search results, particularly in relation to Google Shopping. Many of these changes have sought to make Google a more attractive place for both merchants who want to sell products and shoppers who want to begin their online product searches.
For this reason, it seems fair to assume that improving the quality of the content of product reviews, which often rank in the top positions for product keywords, is one of Google’s main goals: if users rely on Search to display the best product summaries and reviews as part of their path to purchase, Google has an obligation to ensure that the content is of the highest possible quality to best meet users’ needs.
- Application in SERP
Lastly, Google may have focused on accurate and high-quality product review content because it collects and uses such information by displaying it directly in its SERPs. In particular, examples of experimentation with a feature called Buying Guides have been recounted in the past few months that is triggered for mobile searches and pops up informational boxes with in-depth links about the product that was of interest during the queries. These Buying Guides incorporate many of the important questions answered by product review sites into the search results, using accordions to expand on different product considerations.
Google’s clarifications on the Product Reviews rating system.
Various Googlers have also intervened on the topic over time via social, and Barry Schwartz on Seroundtable has collected key responses back in December 2021 that can help us better understand the intentions and goals of the Product Reviews system now active in Italy.
In particular, Developer Advocate Alan Kent (who specializes in the e-Commerce sector, so to speak) clarifies that the update is relevant mainly “for sites that publish articles that review products,” giving the example of a site like “bestTVsunder$200.com” (something like “bestTVsunder$200dollars.com”), and seeks to “improve the quality and usefulness of the reviews shown to users.”
In more detail, Kent quickly dwells on the two innovative aspects for content creators: first, the invitation to include outbound links to multiple retailers is motivated by the fact that people are “wary of reviews where everyone points to a vendor’s affiliate links,” because it raises the question of “whether it’s really a good review, or whether it’s trying to maximize what the vendor wants to push,” which conversely the inclusion of links to other retailers can reduce or eliminate.
The use of “evidence” to show that the product has actually been tested, on the other hand, serves to address another doubt that may strike readers, namely that the author is just reworking third-party information. Google therefore wants to make pages written by someone “who has made a real effort to review a product and is offering real value to the community” rank better, and advice about “things to include in the review is meant to make clear the effort they personally put into it.”
This content is much more useful than content offered by a site that “takes product descriptions from vendors, makes minor edits, and then posts it as a review,” because it is made by “someone who actually reviews the product and gives their own unique perspective on it.”
John Mueller also reiterated that Google “does not recommend simply reusing the content and calling it a review, since it is not a review if the author is just rewording the specifications and not reviewing the product.” In his experience, there are “tons of very low quality copy-paste reviews,” but in addition to the blatantly bad ones, “there’s also a ton of content where you take product pages and reformulate them or rewrite them as something new” and that ranks well because “now there’s no metric for it and it’s seen as great content.”
In short, the Googlers imply that, especially in the long run, the search engine will be able to recognize and reward only those who are truly dedicated to creating content that is unique and capable of standing out from those from their product review competitors, adding details and evidence to certify this effort to readers.
Beyond Google’s words: the factors that determine the quality of a product review
Remaining in the realm of analysis and speculation done by international SEO experts (who have had the opportunity to test concrete applications of the Product Reviews System in the United States over the past two years or so), we can go beyond the information publicly shared by Google to provide more concrete and more useful insights for practical application.
In particular, Jennifer Slegg‘s excellent work builds on the effects of Google’s (first) algorithmic intervention (April 2021) and provides a comprehensive overview of which pages had actually lost traffic and for what reasons-and, thus, identifies which types of content Google was rewarding.
The starting point, also reiterated in this article, is that Google wants to ensure that its search results are always of the highest quality: in this sense, “a product review with that is simply a regurgitation of an Amazon description” is something that Google has an interest in ranking lower, because it is of lower or minimal quality.
In fact, the search engine is trying to limit the appearance in SERP (at least in the top positions) of reviews that are “just rewritten versions of what is on the manufacturer’s site,” and it is in this sense that the invitation to write with more originality and detail – which is also something that meets the interest of the reader who is looking for reviews to inform himself.
Thus, pages with reviews that do not add any value to distinguish themselves from any other reviews that can be found on the web are at risk of losing rankings: many of the product reviews devalued by Google already in the past months were limited to reporting information about the basic functionality of the product, including “probably a fair number of keywords,” but were devoid of “the parts that users actually search for when searching Google for product reviews, particularly those for more expensive items.”
This means that the algorithm does not “specifically target all affiliate sites,” but “affiliate sites that are not doing anything to improve the user experience with their reviews” and, at the same time, also “sites that offer low-quality product reviews that earn money through Google AdSense or other ad networks and not through affiliate links.”
The competency aspect and the role of the author
There are then two words that jump out at you when reading Google’s best practices (mentioned explicitly or indirectly), namely expertise and experience, which immediately refer back to the concept of E-E-A-T for Google: if already in general being able to show and demonstrate expertise and experience of an author is (increasingly) crucial, because it is something that readers, but also the algorithms themselves, look out for, this is even more true for affiliate content or product reviews, which end up under Google’s direct lens.
According to his analysis, in order to succeed in the rankings we need to work hard on E-E-A-T, highlighting the expertise of the authors of the reviews and why users should trust them, “including as much original information and data in those reviews to bring them to a higher level of quality, whether it be videos, images, additional research, benchmarks, statistics, and real product feedback.”
According to Slegg, on the practical side, we need to look closely at the product reviews posted and the authorship associated with each one, checking whether we show the name of the author who reviewed the product or whether all content is posted under “Admin,” and trying to figure out whether it is easy for a user to understand why he or she should trust what the reviewer is talking about. In his experience, many affiliate sites still make it difficult for users to find out anything about the author, although this is often because it is “cheap or respun” content, whereas instead Google wants, all the more so with this update, to see and bring out some sort of expert knowledge involved in these reviews.
Therefore, it is important to show the expertise of the site’s authors by, for example, including a short bio of the author at the bottom of each product review and also creating a specific bio page that offers more information about his or her expertise and why someone should trust what he or she has to say, with links to recent articles, indication of any awards or recognitions he or she has won, and links to other sites to which he or she has contributed, which can show that other publishing entities have vouched for this figure as well.
After all, anyone can take a manufacturer’s description, add some hot hair, and then include an Amazon affiliate link, but not everyone can write a solid review based on extensive experience in a given category.
Descriptions are not enough, you need evidence
Another relevant aspect is that “Google wants to try to differentiate product reviews where the author has a physical product in hand” from articles that are simply based on a cursory description of the product, made by sourcing information from other sites or from the manufacturer itself. Google’s goal is to bring out these “sincerely honest product reviews” with better rankings than “more spammy and more generic reviews,” because “a page masquerading as a product review where you haven’t really reviewed the product doesn’t provide a good user experience.”
In fact, much of what is listed in Google’s best practices for product reviews goes precisely in this direction, that is, it pushes authors to really try the product/service to be able to describe it in all its facets, answering questions that only real use can reveal.
In addition to evidence, elements such as videos and specially created multimedia content can also help to distinguish oneself from competitors, and thus characterize one’s review as “quality.”
Stand out from other reviews on the Web
More specifically on the topic of differentiating oneself from competitors, Jennifer Slegg identifies a number of possible actions to take when creating the review.
As mentioned, videos created while reviewing a product (that clearly demonstrate that there is a physical product actually tested), as well as action shots (that show the product in use) and photos of the product that are self-made (and not stock or taken from other sites) are an effective way to stand out and can offer a huge advantage to one’s page, because they immediately indicate to Google and readers that those reviews are legitimate versus more spammy reviews.
In addition, the review should also be reviewed and reworked after a period of time, because it is helpful to provide “an update on the use of the product after a month or after a few months of use, as sometimes annoyances with products are only really apparent after using them for a given time.”
Another tip to follow when creating a review is to avoid hype and sensationalism, which could make the content appear “skewed, show blatant favoritism and make some users suspicious, giving the feeling that the author is just trying to get a sales or affiliate commission and not offering the user an honest opinion.” Even if they are products that fully convince us or are the top of the line, it is rare “for a product to be perfect to the last, and a review of a product without a single negative thing to say can seem unreliable”: therefore, it is advisable to include at least one or two negative aspects of a product, even if they are relatively minor in the “grand scheme of things.”
Obviously, to find these flaws or defects it is not enough to rely only on the marketing material disseminated by the manufacturer-which is “very well designed to convince people that they cannot live without that product” – and indeed it is precisely the PR-generated hype that drives users to seek less biased reviews. Basically, in fact, all reviews should be unbiased and objective, avoiding excesses in either direction: even saying “this product sucks” without offering details or explanations is wrong, while expressing a negative opinion supported by facts may be more helpful to the user.
The practical and technical aspects of writing quality reviews
Slegg’s analysis also dwells on some technical and practical aspects that can be useful to put into practice to make a review “quality.”
It starts with a general consideration: a review website can host articles dedicated to a single product – and thus very detailed reviews on this product, examined from all points of view also suggested by Google – but also summary articles, which can help consumers decide between several similar products, whether they are similar models from the same manufacturer or alternative models made by competing manufacturers. Nor are articles in the form of lists (such as “the best 10” and so on) to be overlooked, which indeed are invaluable for people looking for information.
A simple technical intervention that can benefit is to add the date to the review, which will help users understand whether the content presents current or old information-not to mention that Google shows the date for results in SERPs. As a consequence, we need to periodically update content – even content about products that are now discontinued, but can still be searched by users and generate traffic, links and advertising revenue – to prevent it from being outdated compared to the information provided by competitors.
Also on the technical front, it is important that pages with product reviews are mobile friendly: some elements are “mobile-unfriendly,” says the author, who specifically mentions additional content such as graphics, images or PDFs that are not well adapted to mobile fruition or excessively long text “without users being able to go directly to the part of the review most relevant to them.”
The last aspect pointed out by this comprehensive guide concerns the usefulness of providing moderated comments to content: “an active community, such as people commenting on a page, can really show how popular that site is.” Of course, this exposes you to risks because, like any user-generated content, you need to moderate comments and not just approve only the positive comments, but also show the negative ones “as long as they are written in a thoughtful and constructive way.” Just as users find product reviews unreliable if they are too glaring, the same goes for comments if those on the page are only (and very) positive: this does not mean producing false negative comments, but not automatically refusing to approve contrary feedback “simply because they are not enthusiastic about the beauty of the product and potentially risk costing affiliate commissions.”
Comments, moreover, can allow the page to earn featured snippets and provide additional ranking opportunities: a person commenting on a useful application of a product that might be omitted from the actual review “can make the page rank for that application and bring other users to the review looking for that specific information.”
SEO analysis of the Product Reviews Update
International SEO analysts have also highlighted other central points on the issue, with Glenn Gabe in particular recounting that he has “heavily analyzed the update since it was launched (April 2021, again, we reiterate, ed.), including the impact on different niche categories, content affected, site-level results, user experience factors on affected sites, and more,” and noted that, in fact, it seems to take a look at and perform a site- and section-level evaluation, not just individual pages. Sites with UGC reviews were also affected by the update, particularly those for which UGC reviews made up a large part of the main content on each page.
From the first release, especially, the focus on the expertise required of the author writing and publishing a review began to become clear, and Google rewarded sites “that had reviews written by experts or enthusiasts and provided solid information about the author on the page or site (via a biography)” and that displayed “a logo and branding at the top of the page,” which make it immediately clear to the reader who is providing the information.
How to demonstrate direct experience in the review
On the subject of the direct experience factor, the documentation updated in April 2023 (modeled largely on the previous documentation focused only on product reviews) makes it abundantly clear that the standard for demonstrating experience is much higher than simply including words or phrases such as “in my experience” or “my hands-on analysis” in the text.
In fact, there are specific ways in which authors can (and indeed must) demonstrate their experience and, in particular, make it clear to Google and readers that they have personally tested the product or service the review is about, which then takes on a higher value, and in particular best practices cite visual evidence, links to other experiences, and quantitative measurements as useful means of clearing up any doubt that the product has been personally handled, tested, used, and measured.
Bottom line: how to write a quality review
We have tried to clarify what is the way to create a quality product review according to Google and according to expert analysis, which comes in particularly handy now that the Product Reviews system has debuted also for the Italian SERPs to apply the guidance to our pages – and indeed, some of the most popular sites with product reviews follow these best practices and manage to stand out against competitors.
To recap, a first basic aspect to start from is to consolidate and highlight the E-E-A-T factors of content creators to give way to algorithms, but more importantly to people, to understand that articles are written by experienced and competent people who can be trusted.
On the level of writing – indeed, page organization – it is useful to include as much original information and data in a review as possible, because this way we bring it to a higher level of quality and differentiate it from the pages created by (many) competitors: therefore, green light to the production of videos and images showing the product in action, but also to the use of additional research, benchmarking analysis, statistics and real product feedback.
Obviously, the segment in which we operate can make a difference: some market areas require a much higher level of quality to position pages with product reviews well, but in general these tips can help raise the bar on the information experience offered to readers.
