TPT Resources Vendor Moderation Guidelines

Need help in getting started? Talk to a Program ManagerSchedule A Conversation

illustration

View All Resources / Moderation Guidelines

Summary of Peer Insights Validation & Moderation Guidelines

Each review that is submitted on the Gartner Peer Insights web site goes through our rigorous moderation and validation process. The purpose of validation and moderation process is to 1) validate reviewers’ identity, 2) check for potential conflicts of interest, and 3) ensure reviews meet Peer Insights standards for quality.

1. Validate Reviewers’ Identity

We independently verify the reviewer’s identity and employment. For that, we evaluate whether the reviewer’s name, company and work email are consistent based on information provided. In addition, we perform a web search to cross reference online profiles of the reviewer (LinkedIn, Zoominfo, etc.) and their company. An ideal Peer Insights reviewer is involved in the evaluation, purchase, implementation, support, or usage of the solution.

2. Check for Potential Conflicts of Interest

We do not publish reviews from anyone employed by a company that has an association with the vendor (employee, partner or competitor) or association with the product being reviewed (this includes value-added resellers, system integrators and consultants).

3. Ensure reviews meet Peer Insights standards for quality

Reviews are assessed based on a set of unique criteria to determine whether or not a review meets Peer Insights standards for context, quality, and relevance. A great review typically has the following characteristics:

  • Provide comments for mandatory questions (not all questions are mandatory)
  • Comments to explain the corresponding ratings (for a highly positive or highly negative rated review, there should be supporting comments to substantiate the rating)
  • Implementation of the product being reviewed must be completed
  • Ratings are logically consistent (the overall ratings are in line with the averages of the sub-ratings)
  • Demonstration of experience with the respective product

If we find a discrepancy on any of the above three conditions, we send a rejection email to reviewer’s email address provided. Reviewers are given the opportunity to amend their review and submit for further consideration. If a reviewer believes a decision has been made incorrectly, they may respond with further explanation as needed.

Rejection Reasons and Additional Information

 

Identity Verification

  • What does it mean?
  • The reviewer identity could not be confirmed by Gartner, and he/she did not respond when contacted.
  • How to fix this moving forward?
  • When customers leave reviews they will be asked to confirm their email. Make sure they don’t skip this step. If no confirmed email is provided, Gartner uses LinkedIn and company websites to identify the reviewer. If they can’t be identified this way, Gartner will be forced to reject the review. Always direct your customers to use their verified work email to submit a Peer Insights review.

Not End-User

  • What does it mean?
  • The review was submitted by an ineligible individual. System Integrators/Consultants and MSP’s* are not allowed to leave reviews, and will be immediately rejected.
  • How to fix this moving forward?
  • Ensure all reviews are from end-user customers. Every reviewer is asked to self-identify as either a customer, system integrator, or reseller as part of the review process; if he/she chooses anything aside from “customer”, the review will be rejected. As part of the moderation process, if our team sees any red flags, we will lean towards rejection and reach out to the customer for additional clarification.

Logically Inconsistent

  • What does it mean?
  • The most common reason reviews are rejected for a logical inconsistency is due to a disconnect between the rating and the content. For example, if a reviewer left a 5 star rating, but the content (actual words in the review) is negative or doesn’t align with the rating, this would be considered a logical inconsistency. Other reasons would include the implementation being incomplete, the product not being deployed yet internally, or the review content being submitted in a language other than English.
  • How to fix this moving forward?
  • It is the customer’s responsibility to leave a quality review. We would suggest communicating to the reviewer that each review is thoroughly vetted – from the rating to the actual review content left in each box – and highlight that it is important to provide quality feedback that lines up across all areas of the review.

Low Content

  • What does it mean?
  • The reviewer left very little information. For example, Gartner does not accept one sentence responses.
  • How to fix this moving forward?
  • Encourage reviewers to be specific and leave as much information as possible. Communicate that short reviews, or reviews with very little information, are not accepted as they are deemed “unhelpful” to other end-users, or prospects reading the reviews to help make better purchasing decisions.

Conflict of Interest

  • What does it mean?
  • Peer Insights is evolving our policy to ensure that we accept reviews only from direct customers (i.e., reviewers company uses the solution themselves). At this time, Gartner does not publish reviews from anyone employed by a company with an association with the vendor (employee, partner, competitor, etc.) or association with the product being reviewed (reseller, value-added reseller, system integrator, MSP*, consultant, etc.).
  • How to fix this moving forward?
  • Ensure all internal partners are educated on who they should be reaching out to for feedback on Gartner Peer Insights, and ensure all reviews are from end-user customers. Every reviewer is asked to self-identify their relationship with the vendor they are reviewing; if he/she chooses anything aside from “customer”, the review will not be published.

Determining which reviews are approved and published on the site is at the discretion of Peer Insights.

For more information and general questions about Peer Insights, see Peer Insights FAQs

*Peer Insights recognizes that MSP’s have very deep product knowledge that may be insightful for the enterprise IT decision makers, and often times the reviews we get from MSP’s are very high quality. As such, we have updated the survey question to more clearly ask for the relationship of the reviewer with the vendor. We will be developing the platform to be able to display the MSP reviews as clearly separate from the direct customers’ reviews, and not include them in average overall ratings on in research documents like the Gartner Peer Insights Voice of the Customer. Until then, we will remove reviews from MSP’s from the Peer Insights site.