  Online marketplaces use rating systems to promote the discovery of
high-quality products. However, these systems also lead to high variance in
producers' economic outcomes: a new producer who sells high-quality items, may
unluckily receive one low rating early on, negatively impacting their future
popularity. We investigate the design of rating systems that balance the goals
of identifying high-quality products (efficiency) and minimizing the variance
in economic outcomes of producers of similar quality (individual producer
fairness).
  We show that there is a trade-off between these two goals: rating systems
that promote efficiency are necessarily less individually fair to producers. We
introduce prior-weighted rating systems as an approach to managing this
trade-off. Informally, the system we propose sets a system-wide prior for the
quality of an incoming product; subsequently, the system updates that prior to
a posterior for each producer's quality based on user-generated ratings over
time. We show theoretically that in markets where products accrue reviews at an
equal rate, the strength of the rating system's prior determines the operating
point on the identified trade-off: the stronger the prior, the more the
marketplace discounts early ratings data (increasing individual fairness), but
the slower the platform is in learning about true item quality (so efficiency
suffers). We further analyze this trade-off in a responsive market where
customers make decisions based on historical ratings. Through calibrated
simulations, we show that the choice of prior strength mediates the same
efficiency-consistency trade-off in this setting. Overall, we demonstrate that
by tuning the prior as a design choice in a prior-weighted rating system,
platforms can be intentional about the balance between efficiency and producer
fairness.
