How we read sentiment — and the lines we won't cross

Two layers, kept separate on purpose

Every profile has two layers and we never let them blur. The first is real store data: the Apple App Store and Google Play rating and rating count, pulled from the live listing, dated, and linked so you can check it yourself. The second is public sentiment: a paraphrased, sourced reading of how the conversation leans on each aspect. The first layer is measured. The second is a reading. Conflating them — turning a vibe into a number — is exactly what we don't do.

Sentiment is organised by aspect, not rolled into a grade

Instead of one overall verdict, each app is read across the aspect set for its category — for calorie trackers that's accuracy and trust, logging speed, food database quality, value, adherence, and sync and support. For each aspect we assign a categorical lean: positive, mixed or negative. A lean describes how the public conversation tilts in the sources we read; it is not a score, not a percentage, and not a measurement. "Mixed" is a real, common, honest outcome and we use it freely.

Every sentiment claim is paraphrased and sourced

We read written app-store reviews, the relevant subreddits and forums, and review sites like Trustpilot. We then write what people raise in our own words and link the source. We do not reproduce quotes, usernames, upvote counts or screenshots, and we never invent them. If a theme can't be traced to a real public source a reader can open, it doesn't ship.

Real ratings only — and sample size is always shown

We publish a star rating only when it's real, and always with its rating count and the date we read it. When a listing has no captured rating we say "not yet captured" rather than letting a blank read as a zero. When a sample is small or newer we flag it in plain sight: a high average over a few hundred ratings is a promising but provisional signal, not the same claim as the same average over a hundred thousand. We never average two stores into one tidy number that hides where they disagree.

What "criticised" guarantees

Every profile carries a "what users criticise" block, and it is never empty — for every app, including ones we or readers like. If we can find genuine praise for an app, we can find and publish its genuine criticisms at the same depth. Balance is structural here, not optional.

What we don't do

• No verdict. We don't crown an app or stamp a pass/fail.
• No score out of 100. Sentiment is never converted into a number.
• No single winner. The index doesn't rank apps against each other; profiles are read across the same aspects so they're comparable without being scored.
• No fabrication. No invented quotes, usernames, counts, or ratings.
• No cloaking. Humans and bots get byte-identical pages.

Sample bias, stated out loud

A loud subreddit is a vocal slice of a conversation, not a population, and a fresh app's early reviews skew toward its keenest early users. We read those sources because they're rich and specific, but we say where the evidence is thin and we hold provisional reads as provisional. When the store rating and the public chatter point different ways, we say so rather than picking a side.