MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125426868 · doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.2589

Studying the consistency of star ratings and the complaints in 1 & 2-star user reviews for top free cross-platform Android and iOS apps

2016· article· en· W3125426868 on OpenAlexaff
Hanyang Hu, Cor‐Paul Bezemer, Ahmed E. Hassan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAndroid (operating system)Computer scienceMobile appsWorld Wide WebDownloadApp storeStar (game theory)RevenueConsistency (knowledge bases)Operating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How users rate a mobile app via star ratings and user reviews is of utmost importance for the success of an app. Recent studies and surveys show that users rely heavily on star ratings and user reviews that are provided by other users, for deciding which app to download. However, understanding star ratings and user reviews is a complicated matter, since they are influenced by many factors such as the actual quality of the app and how the user perceives such quality relative to their expectations, which are in turn influenced by their prior experiences and expectations relative to other apps on the platform (e.g., iOS versus Android). Nevertheless, star ratings and user reviews provide developers with valuable information for improving the software quality of their app. In an effort to expand their revenue and reach more users, app developers commonly build cross-platform apps, i.e., apps that are available on multiple platforms. As star ratings and user reviews are of such importance in the mobile app industry, it is essential for developers of cross-platform apps to maintain a consistent level of star ratings and user reviews for their apps across the various platforms on which they are available. In this paper, we investigate whether cross-platform apps achieve a consistent level of star ratings and user reviews. We manually identify 19 cross-platform apps and conduct an empirical study on their star ratings and user reviews. By manually tagging 9,902 1 & 2-star reviews of the studied cross-platform apps, we discover that the distribution of the frequency of complaint types varies across platforms. Finally, we study the negative impact ratio of complaint types and find that for some apps, users have higher expectations on one platform. All our proposed techniques and our methodologies are generic and can be used for any app. Our findings show that at least 68% of the studied cross-platform apps do not have consistent star ratings, which suggests that different quality assurance efforts need to be considered by developers for the different platforms that they wish to support.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207