I like Migipedia and actually really enjoy using the product reviews. I use them to guide my shopping, and I also like to contribute my own reviews. That’s why it sometimes annoys me even more to see what’s going on under “Reviews.” 😉
You’ll find reviews that are many years old, even though the product has since been reformulated several times. What good is a review of a product from five or ten years ago to me today, when it’s no longer the same thing at all?
And then there are the classics:
⭐️ “1 star—haven’t tried it yet.”
⭐️ “1 star – let the animals live.”
⭐️ “1 star”—and as a reason, something that has about as much to do with the product as I do with moon landings. 😂
Of course, critical and even negative reviews should stay. That’s exactly what reviews are for! But they should at least reflect an actual experience with the product and still be somewhat relevant to other customers.
And now I’m wondering: **Why doesn’t Migipedia finally take advantage of the possibilities that AI offers today?**
AI could, for example, detect when a review clearly doesn’t pertain to the product, when someone admits they haven’t even tried it, or when a very old review refers to a formula that was changed long ago. There’s no need to delete anything secretly—such reviews could be flagged, downgraded, or moved to a separate section.
To me, that would be real “cleaning up”—not censorship.
Because when I read reviews, I don’t want to see as many stars as possible, but rather as many **useful experiences** as possible.
Maybe that could be an idea for Migipedia:
**Less review junk, more real guidance. And if AI can help with that—why not? 😉**
I like Migipedia and actually really enjoy using the product reviews. I use them to guide my shopping, and I also like to contribute my own reviews. That’s why it sometimes annoys me even more to see what’s going on under “Reviews.” 😉
You’ll find reviews that are many years old, even though the product has since been reformulated several times. What good is a review of a product from five or ten years ago to me today, when it’s no longer the same thing at all?
And then there are the classics:
⭐️ “1 star—haven’t tried it yet.”
⭐️ “1 star – let the animals live.”
⭐️ “1 star”—and as a reason, something that has about as much to do with the product as I do with moon landings. 😂
Of course, critical and even negative reviews should stay. That’s exactly what reviews are for! But they should at least reflect an actual experience with the product and still be somewhat relevant to other customers.
And now I’m wondering: **Why doesn’t Migipedia finally take advantage of the possibilities that AI offers today?**
AI could, for example, detect when a review clearly doesn’t pertain to the product, when someone admits they haven’t even tried it, or when a very old review refers to a formula that was changed long ago. There’s no need to delete anything secretly—such reviews could be flagged, downgraded, or moved to a separate section.
To me, that would be real “cleaning up”—not censorship.
Because when I read reviews, I don’t want to see as many stars as possible, but rather as many **useful experiences** as possible.
Maybe that could be an idea for Migipedia:
**Less review junk, more real guidance. And if AI can help with that—why not? 😉**
