+ Accurately links confirmed facts to the recurring issue.
- The public reply exceeds the review, breaking a key constraint.
The audience is the next buyer, not the reviewer — and order details never go in a public reply.
| Category | Office work › Online selling |
|---|---|
| Tags | DraftingReviewingRewriting |
| Updated | · 1 change |
Write a reply to this review. ***The audience is not the reviewer. It is the next buyer reading the product page.*** **Every sentence spent persuading the reviewer is a cost paid by them.** **Judge first:** - **Is a reply needed?** *Unless a fact is wrong or another buyer would be misled, a short line of thanks is often better* - **Public, or move it to a message?** **The reply:** 1. **Say specifically what it is about.** ***Not a template opening*** 2. **Confirmed facts only.** If an apology is needed, **once** 3. ***What changed, if anything.*** **This is the only line with value for the next buyer** 4. Move individual resolution to a private channel **Do not:** - **Dispute the reviewer's experience** - Quote policy or terms - Mention that other reviews are positive - ***Include anything identifying them*** — **order date, what they bought, delivery details. That is personal data in a public place** - **Imply they misunderstood** **Then:** - **The reply — shorter than the review.** *Longer reads as defensive* - ***What this review actually points at.*** **That matters more than the reply** - **If several reviews say this, say so** — *then it is a product or listing problem, not a reply problem* ⚠️ ***Do not deny anything unverified*** — say it is being checked. **Never offer compensation in exchange for changing or removing a review.** ***Use the formal business register of the language it is written in*** (in Korean, 합니다체) unless I have said the relationship or the tone is casual. *This is a public reply — no greeting or sign-off template is needed; the courtesy comes from the register, not from a stock opening.*
A review reply is read by the next buyer, so persuading the reviewer costs them attention. This keeps only what changed and never puts order details in public.
ChatGPT best respects the confirmed facts and recurring pattern, though its reply is too long. Claude is conditionally useful but verbose, while Gemini contains the most unsupported claims.
+ Accurately links confirmed facts to the recurring issue.
- The public reply exceeds the review, breaking a key constraint.
+ Carefully separates posting conditions and response channels.
- It assumes an unconfirmed change and adds excessive speculation.
+ Recognizes repeated reviews as a structural listing issue.
- It invents changes and resolution, then speculates about fit.
| Criterion | ChatGPT | Claude | Gemini | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instruction following | 8 | 8 | 6 | Tie |
| Accuracy | 10 | 7 | 4 | ChatGPT +43% |
| Specificity | 10 | 9 | 7 | ChatGPT +11% |
| Structure | 10 | 8 | 7 | ChatGPT +25% |
| Right length | 8 | 6 | 5 | ChatGPT +33% |
Scored 1–10 by gpt-5.6-sol with model names hidden (2026-09-24). This is an AI review, not a measurement.
We gave three models the same input and copied their answers unedited. Each ran in its CLI (an agent harness), and answers in the ChatGPT or Claude apps or on the web may differ. Outputs are in Korean.
The review: 배송은 빨랐는데 사이즈가 생각보다 작아요. 상세페이지에 나온 치수랑 다른 것 같습니다. 반품은 귀찮아서 그냥 쓰려구요. 별 2개. What I verified: 실측 치수는 상세페이지 표기와 같습니다. 다만 표기 위치가 하단이라 잘 안 보입니다. 이번 달 같은 취지 리뷰가 4건 있었습니다.
답글
실측 치수는 상세페이지 표기와 일치하지만, 표기 위치가 하단이라 확인하기 어려웠던 점을 확인했습니다. 치수 정보를 상단에서도 바로 확인할 수 있도록 상세페이지를 보완하겠습니다. 불편을 드려 죄송합니다.
이 리뷰가 실제로 지적하는 점
제품 치수보다 사이즈 정보의 가시성이 문제입니다. 같은 취지의 리뷰가 이번 달 4건이라면 개별 답변보다 상세페이지의 치수 표기 위치와 안내 방식을 개선해야 합니다.
| Date | What changed and why |
|---|---|
| Added a default formal register; as a public reply it still needs no greeting template. |
| Answer a customer question on a listing | |
| Act as an Etsy Niche Product Researcher | |
| Digital product ideas | |
| Etsy POD Masterclass: From Zero to Hero | |
| Guía para Diseñar y Vender un Libro en Hotmart |