Loved by people making songs for people

Where these come from

The mechanics, so you can weigh what you are reading.

• Asked once, after a song. The request goes to people who have actually made something — not to visitors, not repeatedly, and never in exchange for anything.
• One tap to rate. Stars first, with writing optional, which is why most of the reviews here are a rating rather than a paragraph.
• Read by a person before it shows. Approval is manual. What gets left off is abuse and empty text, not low scores.
• Shortened names. A first name and an initial, with the country, and nothing else — the song someone made is often a private thing.

What a low rating changed

One early one-star said a memorial song had come back too upbeat. That is a product problem, not a taste problem, and it is now handled in the generator: a brief that mentions a memorial, a funeral, a tribute or the loss of someone steers the arrangement toward something gentle and traditional — unless the brief explicitly asks for a celebration, because plenty of people want exactly that.

That is the honest argument for keeping low ratings visible and readable. A page of five-star reviews tells you nothing you can act on; a review that made the product change tells you how the product is looked after.

If a song comes back wrong

Before you rate, two things are worth trying, because most disappointing songs are fixable in a couple of minutes. Listen to the other take — every generation returns two, and they are different performances, not a draft and a final. Then change one thing in the brief rather than rewriting it: the voice, the pace, or the single detail at its centre.

If it is still wrong, say so in the review, and say what you asked for. A rating with a sentence about what you wanted is worth more to us than ten stars without one — the memorial case above started exactly that way.

Sources

• How review rich results work, and what a rating in structured data has to mean — Google Search Central