Verification and review weight
Every voice can be heard.Verified experiences carry the weight.
RealReviews does not use one vague verified badge. Identity, experience, transaction, documents, outcomes, and follow-up answer different questions, so they receive different labels.
Public anonymity and platform accountability are not the same
A reviewer may have a valid reason to keep a legal name off a public page. RealReviews can privately verify that person and show a public display name. The contribution can then carry meaningful weight because the platform knows who is accountable.
A truly anonymous or insufficiently verified submission is different. It may be displayed when appropriate, clearly labeled, and used to identify a question worth investigating. It receives no or minimal direct scoring weight and cannot independently establish a serious factual allegation.
Publicly identified
The contributor chooses to publish an identity alongside the experience.
Privately verified
RealReviews confirms the identity, while the public sees a display name or pseudonym.
Unverified or truly anonymous
The platform has not established enough identity or experience evidence to grant verified authority.
The verification ladder
Identity verified
A real, unique person controls the account.
Experience verified
The person’s interaction with the company, service, product, or offer is confirmed.
Transaction verified
A purchase, payment, booking, contract, or completed service is confirmed.
Evidence reviewed
Documents, photographs, correspondence, or records support important details.
Outcome documented
The result—delivery, refund, repair, failure, settlement, or other outcome—has support.
Long-term follow-up
The contributor returns after a meaningful period to report durability or later consequences.
One review can contain several evidence states
A transaction can be established while a conclusion about motive remains the reviewer’s interpretation. RealReviews labels those pieces separately.
| Statement | Public label | What the label means |
|---|---|---|
| The customer paid $2,400. | Transaction verified | Payment evidence supports the amount. |
| The contract named June 15. | Document verified | The reviewed agreement contains that date. |
| Work remained incomplete on July 1. | Experience verified | The event is supported by the available record. |
| The delay was intentional. | Reviewer interpretation | This is the contributor’s judgment, not an established fact. |
A volume test
Imagine Company A with 300 unverified five-star ratings, twelve verified transactions, two documented outcomes, and major disagreement across sources. Company B has eighty verified transactions, thirty-six documented outcomes, consistent follow-up, and a visible resolution record.
Their raw star averages could look similar. Their evidence confidence should not. Company B has more support for conclusions about delivery, durability, and complaint handling. Company A has more votes, but the vote count cannot answer who participated or what was proved.
Volume does not manufacture credibility. Verification earns it.
What changes review weight
| Can increase confidence | Does not increase confidence |
|---|---|
| Identity, experience, and transaction verification | Five stars or one star |
| Relevant documents and claim support | Brand approval |
| Dates, prices, timelines, and measurable outcomes | Affiliate sales |
| Long-term updates and a reliable correction history | Virality or outrage |
| Disclosed relationships and fraud checks | Agreement with the majority |