zlacker

>>tortil+(OP)
Reviews have incentives, so crowd sourcing them is broken, in principle. You can try to monitor the reviewers, and put punishments and bans in place, or just pay them to do your job for you.

>>tgv+DU1
Seems like something a protocol could solve, not a company or a single person that can be easily bought. Crowd sourcing is not the problem, if no one can control the aggregated result.

A decentralised rating system would work really nicely on something like nostr. You still have the issue of spam to solve, but that's a larger, orthogonal issue.

>>sph+612
Attaching a reputation to each critic and weighting their opinion on it could work.

Critics would be loathe to be discovered taking money if it dropped their ability to influence aggregate ranking (and those who send the money would be loathe to send it if sending it made it worthless).

>>shadow+fk2
Isn't this basically how rotten tomatoes works?