Moderate incoming reviews

Review new submissions from the pending queue before they appear on the storefront. Start with the oldest unreviewed items unless there is an urgent escalation. Check rating, review body, media, product assignment, reviewer context, and whether the review mentions an unresolved support issue.

Apply one decision at a time: approve, hide, feature, reply, tag, or escalate. Avoid turning moderation into rewriting. Formatting cleanup is acceptable when it preserves meaning, but the customer's sentiment should stay intact.

Approve reviews that are relevant, authentic, and safe to show. Hide or escalate submissions that contain spam, private information, irrelevant content, abusive language, unsafe claims, suspected fraud, or media that should not be public. Do not hide a review only because it is critical.

• Approve: relevant product experience, safe language, no private data.
• Feature: specific, helpful, media-rich, or objection-answering review.
• Hide: spam, unrelated content, private information, or policy violation.
• Escalate: safety issue, defect pattern, legal concern, or unresolved support problem.

For moderation philosophy, read moderation principles for credible customer proof.

Merchant replies are most useful when they clarify a product detail, acknowledge a resolved issue, or show that the brand listens. Keep replies concise and specific. Avoid defensive language or generic templates that make the review feel less authentic.

For low ratings, coordinate with support before replying publicly. If the customer has an active case, the public reply should not reveal private order details. A simple note that the team has reached out can be enough.

When a review is hidden, edited for formatting, escalated, or featured, keep enough context for future support and compliance questions. Useful context includes the reason, the teammate who handled it, the product involved, and any support ticket or internal note connected to the decision.

Audit context protects the merchant when review decisions are questioned later. It also helps new teammates understand the standard without re-litigating old decisions.