CONSISTENCY IN RATING REVIEWS AND QUICK REVIEWS

A HELPFUL REVIEW ?


Now people must have at least one "HELPFUL" review in order to rate or comment, l have noticed a marked increase in RUBBISH Quick Reviews being rated as "helpful" (ie "thumbs-up") rather than "thumbs-down" ("somewhat helpful") ~~~

Yet, those same members rating will give out SH on a standard review which is

• On topic
  
• Contains more useful information
  

lf a Quick Review is saying "l ordered x and it never came" (with or without adding "despite e-mails" etc) it is only "Somewhat Helpful" to a prospective buyer ~ so it should receive a THUMBS-DOWN!

I have even seen totally Off Topic quick reviews with an overall "helpful" ~ and all this does is to allow someone license to rate and comment on reviews, totally sidestepping the safeguard of requiring at least one helpful review.



l have started reading and thinking, "lf this was a Quick Review, would l give it "thumbs-up" ?" And, on quick reviews, "Has this mentioned enough to tell me basis of product, or even the range covered by website reviewed?


What do others think?


Anyone can check the members rating by clicking the overall-rating link.

Sorry, Adam. l should have consulted you before posting.

l thought l'd missed a choice out . . .

l don't think l can alter the poll, now, though.

Am I the only one who hates quick reviews?

Whenever I want to buy something, car seat, mobile, car, pram, holiday etc, the first thing I do is go onto Ciao and look up if anyone has wrote a review on the product.

While some reviews I find are too long and are telling me everything other then what I want to know, I find quick reviews never tell me enough.

I do sometimes rate them (more often then not it tends to be a thumbs down) but tend to spend my time reading the longer reviews.

spoilt_little_brat wrote:

Am I the only one who hates quick reviews?

l am not fond of them, but some are very helpful; possibly more helpful than long standard reviews on the same topic.

MOST, I HATE, too.

l have written 2 quick reviews. The first one was carefully "crafted" as an experiment (as in, "Don't knock it until you've tried it") to see if l could do it, on a subject similar to one l had recently reviewed.

The second one wrote itself, when it suddenly occurred to me that my comment, if l added a bare minimum to it, would be even more useful as a QR than a comment.

Quote :

l used to joke that some of my comments were longer than the reviews they were on . . .

lf you are going to write one, there isn't much point in it if there are already more than 15 reviews on the topic, as visibility will be virtually nil unless all the other reviews are of an extremely poor quality.


Every so often, l go to the New Quick Reviews list in the Members Centre, and flick through the most recent 100 and rate. l'm just appalled that so many are considered "Helpful" when they say nothing . . .



Someone has to rate them fairly . . .

It's a funny one, as they are intended to be quick, and therefore if they have a couple of sentences of useful information that would confirm or sway a buying decision, then by definition that's useful.

I don't rate them at all - that should be an option on your poll.

With QRs I expect the member to dive into their thoughts of the product (this doesn't always happen).

I like QRs, but unfortunately on Ciao - as you have seen for yourself - there are QRs which are clearly Off topic averaging a H rating. Indication indeed that the standards of reading and rating on the site are poor.

Generally I don't feel enough is done with them - I want to see efforts which are closer to 100 words then they are to the 20 word min.

I for one don't care about the visibility of review and would be surprised if anyone did. And I don't see why a member should not write a Quick Review for a product which already has numerous reviews to it - it contributes to the average product rating does it not? In cases where there is a drastic difference of opinion, a couple of words is sufficient enough to point out several flaws (which may or may not be covered in the other reviews), which would be helpful enough.

scream4bruce wrote:

With QRs I expect the member to dive into their thoughts of the product (this doesn't always happen). . .

. . . Generally I don't feel enough is done with them - I want to see efforts which are closer to 100 words then they are to the 20 word min. . .

l have seen some fine QR closer to the 120-150 maximum for a QR ~ both mine come pretty close to maxing-out ~ but l only wanted to write a "quickie" ~ didn't want to think of a title, and all the faff of noticing comments.

As regards visibility, ACTUALLY, I was called on the carpet by a few "long-standing" members when l started writing reviews four years ago, because my rating caused their review to drop down the visibility stakes (when more than 5, off quick page; more than 15, off first page; when over 100 good reviews, you can almost vanish, unless someone trusting you views "by Circle of Trust") . . . . . ALSO, some of these moaned about people "churning" more than 3 per day, thus knocking them off the "new reviews" visibility.

Some people still think it isn't fair. . .


Part of my point is, though, if the good writers spurn the rating of QRs (and one SH will counter TWO H) then these writers continue unchecked. And with some of these seeming to be "multiple accounts" or "plagiarisers" as they appear to give an identical account; the way is clear to revenge-rate anonymously.

you can view by circle of trust? Blimey I have never done that..!

I thought it was automatic - when you look at a topic it's supposed to show you the reviews by people in your COT automatically.
I've never tested it though.

helencbradshaw wrote:

you can view by circle of trust? Blimey I have never done that..!

First you select ALL REVIEWS then it is one of the options; if you click on it, you first see your OWN review of the topic (because, naturally you trust your own opinion best), then the reviews in order of usefulness of any friends you introduced (if any).

lf any members you "Trust" have written on the topic, their reviews appear next: under the author's name, in red, it says "a trusted member" ~ then, reviews by members THEY trust: "a trusted member - level 2" ~~~ followed by all other reviews on the subject, still in order of usefulness.

This is actually the stated purpose (in the Ciao guidelines) of the Circle of Trust: so you can find reviews on products by members whose opinion you trust, regardless of other members' peer ratings.


lf someone always writes exceptional reviews but always writes the first review of a topic, technically, you would not need to "Trust" them to see their review, unless it became a popular subject.

Well I was joking but now I have tried it, it definitely doesn't work..another ciao bug..

I have the message "trusted by" and level 2 etc against people I have never met, never mind trust..!

Perhaps it proves that "six levels of separation" theory..

helencbradshaw wrote:

I have the message "trusted by" and level 2 etc against people I have never met, never mind trust..!

Perhaps it proves that "six levels of separation" theory..

"a Trusted member - level 2" means that one of the persons whose reviews/opinions you 'trust' (ie, have added to YOUR Circle of Trust) has added that person to THEIR Circle of Trust.

It does not mean YOU have ever met or heard of the member before.

If everyone used the CoT the way it was designed to work, the "level 2" should also be helpful . . .

I think it was a mistake to rename it "buddies" as it takes away some of the expectations of quality ~ it should stand for 'trustworthy reviews' rather than 'written by my cyber-friend who makes me feel good' ~ too often l think it is the latter . . .

And nowhere can you sort by reviews by people who trust you ~ just by going to their profile and trawling through THEIR reviews (and drafts, at the moment, although you cannot access the draft review)

jesi wrote:

As regards visibility, ACTUALLY, I was called on the carpet by a few "long-standing" members when l started writing reviews four years ago, because my rating caused their review to drop down the visibility stakes (when more than 5, off quick page; more than 15, off first page; when over 100 good reviews, you can almost vanish, unless someone trusting you views "by Circle of Trust") . . . . . ALSO, some of these moaned about people "churning" more than 3 per day, thus knocking them off the "new reviews" visibility.

I guess I feel differently. I couldn't give a damn about visibility, ratings, and all that nonsense - I enjoy writing but only look forward to writing my next. And all these unwritten rules can go to hell - no wonder people feel hard done by because they think the Ciao community owes them something (which they don't).

Well, l tend to use Ciao! to research products in which l'm interested ~ or to write ~ and because l appreciate finding updated material, l update my reviews when l feel the need.

And l try to write my 'paying' review each month.

jesi wrote:

"a Trusted member - level 2" means that one of the persons whose reviews/opinions you 'trust' (ie, have added to YOUR Circle of Trust) has added that person to THEIR Circle of Trust.

It does not mean YOU have ever met or heard of the member before.

If everyone used the CoT the way it was designed to work, the "level 2" should also be helpful . . .


)

yes I figured it would be that, I just question its usefulness in real life. I don't tihnk it is possible to use the COT in a specifically designed uniform way. It is just too fluid. At the end of the day, we all warm to 'friends' , even cyber ones, for different reasons and if it is cyber buddies, then that is possibly because we are warmed to that person because of their viewpoints, likes dislikes etc in any event. But as a consumer, given the volume of reviews that exist for anything I have ever tried to research on ciao and dooyoo in 6-7 years, it wouldn't matter one jot to me who wrote the review - it's their satisfaction I am interested in (and that collective satisfaction)

Which probably explains why I never hunted very far for this search facility!