Later that day I asked a friend about the app, and she informed me that it is an anonymous way to search men in the area and learn of other women’s encounters with or thoughts about them.

During the past few weeks, there has been some buzz about this month-old app, and my first thought was that there’s no way it would gain a following here in East Lansing.

The cyberstalking device in the form of an iPhone app seemed suitable for 25-year-olds in urban cities, such as Los Angeles and New York City, where the dating scene seems to have a high turnover rate, but after downloading the free app for myself, I noticed dozens of my Facebook friends already had been reviewed.

Released on Dec. 4, 2012, Lulu is the “first-ever app for reading and writing reviews of guys … by girls, for girls, with features and content we know we need,” according to its description on the iTunes App Store. It’s not rare for women to ask around about a man they’re interested in and if that particular man has been reviewed, her question is answered. The app seems like a useful tool for that reason.

Essentially, users have the opportunity to either encourage women to date the good guys, or warn them of the bad.

Although Lulu prompts women to login through their Facebook account, they review and search anonymously, which is a feature I think will attract more women to the app since people tend to be more open when their identity is masked.

At the same time, anonymity can lead to false ratings, and it’s nearly impossible for women to decipher which ratings are reliable and which are not. This is one of the app’s biggest downfalls.

Before reviewing a man based on his looks, humor and manners, women are first required to state their relationship with him, choosing from categories such as ex-boyfriend, crush, hook up, friend or relative.

This is an important piece of information because opinions are skewed depending on a woman’s relationship with a man.

A man who has been reviewed on Lulu has a page consisting of a picture, the number of views he has received, an average score out of 10, the number of “favorites” and “recommendations” he has received, where he attended college, his hometown and his relationship status.

This information, which a man allows other Facebook users to see when they accept him as a friend, is exposed to any woman on Lulu and revealing it is an invasion of privacy to men who didn’t give the app consent to post the information.

Finally, the app asks a question that encourages women to speak their mind about the men they’re reviewing, “Is there something we should know?”

This is where things get even messier. With the required “login through Facebook” feature, the app creates a “no boys allowed” environment which makes it hard, if not impossible, for men to access information posted about them. They are unable to defend themselves in times of untruthfulness.

On the other hand, Lulu calls for women to review male friends to “let the world know they’re awesome.”

This might be the most beneficial feature the app has. It’s one thing to read a poor review — anyone can say something negative about another — but the positive ratings are those that make you want to know more.

Who better to reveal a man’s character than one of his closest female friends?

The app includes a similar feature that asks women to send a “recommendation” to a girlfriend if she comes across a man who would be a good match for that friend.

Whether or not a woman is truthful in her review of a man, the idea of an anonymous rating system raises a number of questions, one of them being, will this app change the dating game?

Lauren Evasic is a guest columnist at The State News and a journalism junior. Reach her at evasicla@msu.edu.