Course Buyer Leaves A Three-Star Review After Bad Audio And Rushed Lessons, Then The Instructor Says It’s “Affecting His Income” And Asks For Four Stars

In January, a user named ImlegugCloud found themselves invested in their learning journey, specifically focusing on video editing. They spent around sixty dollars on an online course promising comprehensive coverage of crucial skills—everything from cuts to colour grading and audio mixing. Feeling that a structured course would be a more effective way to learn than wandering aimlessly through countless YouTube tutorials, ImlegugCloud jumped in with hopes of gaining new insights.

At first, the course seemed to deliver. The initial modules were decent, providing foundational skills that actually felt beneficial. But as the course progressed, things began to change. The excitement quickly fizzled as it became clear that the instructor was speeding through the content. ImlegugCloud noticed that the lessons felt rushed, particularly during the later modules. One specific module on colour grading stood out as particularly frustrating; rather than a thorough explanation, the instructor mostly described how to “develop an instinct for it,” leaving many concepts unexplained.

Audio quality became another significant issue. At least four videos had sound that was so poorly recorded it was nearly unintelligible, making it difficult for ImlegugCloud to follow along. Faced with these issues, they felt compelled to leave a review. They decided on three stars, noting that while the early parts of the course were helpful, the latter sections fell short and the audio quality was unacceptable. To ImlegugCloud, this felt like a fair assessment—not overly harsh, just an honest reflection of their experience.

Only two days later, ImlegugCloud received a direct message from the instructor. The message struck a nerve; the instructor expressed that the review was affecting his income, which raised questions about the ethics of leaving negative feedback. He suggested that if ImlegugCloud had any issues, they should have approached him directly first. Instead, he asked them to either take the review down or change it to four stars. The request felt strange, almost as if it flouted the norms of honest feedback.

ImlegugCloud considered the response and decided to remain firm. They told the instructor they would be willing to update the review if he improved the audio in those problematic sections. This led to a repeated message from the instructor, again asking for the same favor—removing or altering the review. But no changes were made to the course, and ImlegugCloud chose not to back down.

This interaction left ImlegugCloud feeling uneasy. They wondered whether they should have given the instructor a heads-up before posting their review. Were they being overly critical by sticking with the three-star rating? Still, three stars didn’t feel like a condemnation; after all, it is a middle ground, not a one-star critique. ImlegugCloud grappled with the moral dilemma of providing honest feedback while also being considerate of the instructor’s financial struggles. But at the end of the day, the instructor’s request felt like an attempt to manipulate the review process, and ImlegugCloud stood by their original assessment.

As tensions simmered, ImlegugCloud sought advice from the community. They posed the question: “AITJ for keeping a negative course review up after the instructor messaged me asking me to remove it?” The anticipation for responses reflected a common digital era concern—navigating the fine line between voicing valid grievances and remaining sensitive to the hardships of content creators.

In the end, ImlegugCloud felt a mix of frustration and disappointment. They expected that feedback, both good and bad, is an important part of any educational experience, especially in the online learning landscape. But now, they were questioning their own actions, wondering if they could have handled it differently. Regardless, their review remained as a testament to their experience, and they hoped it might prompt improvements in the course for future students.