Down-rating Diamonds

I can't help noticing that some members habitually down-rate diamond reviews AFTER they've been awarded. I guess I'm just trying to understand their motives. Any ideas?

Okay politically incorrect use of the words down rate. I am as guilty as you are here but I get Aarons point on the fact that any member can rate as they see fit, and it should not be a matter of down rating. May just be a question of rating how they see the review, and here I feel the words downrating only apply if the rater already rated and then changed their original rating to a lower one.

I think that what happens is the curiosity is peaked about who won the diamonds and people go, either to say well done, or to read the kind of reviews that win awards and that therefore they generate more interest than a run of the mill review.

Sorry but everyone is entitled to their own rating!

yes everyone is entitled to an opinion, and why should a diamond review have all VH ratings?. IMHO there have been some diamond reviews which I would have given SH to, because they are so formulaic, they would not assist me in a purchasing decision.

Sounds a bit like jealousy on one hand......and normal spread of ratings on the other.

And yes, as discussed in the threads nearly every month it probably doesn't help that most people don't believe the claim that the diamonds are the 'best reviews' and there may be a few people proving that point to Ciao with their rates. I don't know - I won't read anything just because it got a diamond.

I guess the motives to rate diamonds, post the bling award day might depend on a lot of things.

scream4bruce wrote:

Sorry but everyone is entitled to their own rating!

I'd accept that if they did it BEFORE the announcements. But to plough through the diamond list each month and leave negative ratings and comments on a number of reviews just seems a bit strange to me. It's not something I would do myself, and I'm just curious to find out what inspires other people to do this.

Chuchy wrote:

scream4bruce wrote:

Sorry but everyone is entitled to their own rating!

I'd accept that if they did it BEFORE the announcements. But to plough through the diamond list each month and leave negative ratings and comments on a number of reviews just seems a bit strange to me. It's not something I would do myself, and I'm just curious to find out what inspires other people to do this.

That's quite an accusation. Have you studied the post bling ratings in such a level of detail that you think you can identify a clear pattern of 'discriminatory' rating or is this just a feeling? And are you talking VH rather than E or SH and H's rather than VH's?

I might just go and have a look.

Chuchy wrote:

scream4bruce wrote:

Sorry but everyone is entitled to their own rating!

I'd accept that if they did it BEFORE the announcements. But to plough through the diamond list each month and leave negative ratings and comments on a number of reviews just seems a bit strange to me. It's not something I would do myself, and I'm just curious to find out what inspires other people to do this.

I think the reasons are obvious..and almost negates the reason for a question

no one on ciao perceives the diamond process to be anything like fair, andtherefore it is almost human nature to read reviews and comment on them...(particularly if you perceive you wrote something better..!)

Sites like this have their monthly moan-fest and that sends readers to the lists.

simple!

No please don't criticise ratings or comments! When members rate they should have a case to answer, question them if you wish, don't undermine them or the ratings system.

Quote :

I'd accept that if they did it BEFORE the announcements. But to plough through the diamond list each month and leave negative ratings and comments on a number of reviews just seems a bit strange to me. It's not something I would do myself, and I'm just curious to find out what inspires other people to do this.

I usually take a look at the list, but not the reviews. I am curious always as to what categories win the diamonds and who won them. It's nice to see the names and personally I like to see whether new members got them as well, as these seem to be natural reviews sometimes, although you can't generalise because every month is different.

koshkha wrote:

And are you talking VH rather than E or SH and H's rather than VH's?

I'm talking about H and SH ratings on diamond reviews given after the announcements. H, maybe I can understand - but SH? I've seen this in a number of cases last month and this month too.

Perhaps the rater thought that was what they were and having not read them before the diamond ceremony, read them afterwards and wondered what the heck they got a diamond for, rated fairly (as they saw it), and nothing more sinister than that.

scream4bruce wrote:

No please don't criticise ratings or comments! When members rate they should have a case to answer, question them if you wish, don't undermine them or the ratings system.

If the ratings appear unfair, I believe they need to be criticised and questioned - in public. Especially when there's a pattern of some members doing this on an ongoing basis.

I have three diamonds. Not sure if anyone went in and deliberately rated them lower than other people or not. I haven't really taken much notice, as I got the money for the diamonds. One I felt I deserved and two I thought other reviews of my own were better and that they were ill chosen but at the end of the day if ciao decides that they are diamond worthy, then hey ! who am I to grumble. If someone rates them after the diamond is awarded, what difference does it make ? You still have the diamond

I think Chuchy and Thingy may be right that some people judge a diamond more harshly than an unrewarded review - and by extension may wish to remind Ciao that they don't agree with the 'Best of the month' claim - but let's be honest, some people just rate more harshly on ALL reviews and most of us know that.

And to pick up on comments on other threads about readers feeling they don't like to go against the run of ratings, I have to admit that one of the ones I read this month was barely in English and when faced with a whole slew of Es and VH's I just left the review without giving a rate because my heart and brain said 'this is an H' but I didn't want the aggro that leaving one on such a high profile review would bring. Yes, it was cowardly and yes, I leave at least my share of the lower ratings in general, but discussions like this thread made me reluctant to be the first to point out that the review was poorly structured and semi-literate.

However, when it comes to those people who consistently apply 'tougher criteria' when rating, I think the Ciao community at large judges unexpectedly low rates as saying more about the rater than the writer.

Thingywhatsit wrote:

Perhaps the rater thought that was what they were and having not read them before the diamond ceremony, read them afterwards and wondered what the heck they got a diamond for, rated fairly (as they saw it), and nothing more sinister than that.

I would understand that if it was a one-off. But it's not.

Quote :

And to pick up on comments on other threads about readers feeling they don't like to go against the run of ratings, I have to admit that one of the ones I read this month was barely in English and when faced with a whole slew of Es and VH's I just left the review without giving a rate because my heart and brain said 'this is an H' but I didn't want the aggro that leaving one on such a high profile review would bring. Yes, it was cowardly and yes, I leave at least my share of the lower ratings in general, but discussions like this thread made me reluctant to be the first to point out that the review was poorly structured and semi-literate.

Okay case scenario. A dozen or so other people feel like you and walk away from rating. What happens is that the review keeps its standing and members glean from it that VH or E is the way to go with a review like that. In this circumstances if I really believed my gut feeling that the review was H, I would not hesitate to rate it as such, and explain in as polite a manner as I can why. People go by ratings, people do follow like sheep sometimes, and if a dozen other members felt the same and walked away, they then think the benchmark for diamonds is as stated in the ratings. Going on from this I even rated a diamond as a copy because I believed that it was. I have also found copies in crowns. Not something I particularly look for, but by rating, at least I feel I am being honest. They never did give that extra diamond to anyone else though which was a shame.

koshkha wrote:

However, when it comes to those people who consistently apply 'tougher criteria' when rating, I think the Ciao community at large judges unexpectedly low rates as saying more about the rater than the writer.

I've also noticed that these people tend to have "prescriptions" on how others should write a review in order to get a good rate from them. As if they were the authority on this. I find that a bit presumptuous.

koshkha wrote:

And to pick up on comments on other threads about readers feeling they don't like to go against the run of ratings, I have to admit that one of the ones I read this month was barely in English and when faced with a whole slew of Es and VH's I just left the review without giving a rate because my heart and brain said 'this is an H' but I didn't want the aggro that leaving one on such a high profile review would bring. Yes, it was cowardly and yes, I leave at least my share of the lower ratings in general, but discussions like this thread made me reluctant to be the first to point out that the review was poorly structured and semi-literate.

In those cases I can see that a lower rating is justified. But I cannot understand SH ratings on reviews that are generally well-structured and well-written, just because they don't comply with the rater's personal prescriptions.

If I ever got a diamond and the cash with it I would not give a toss what other people rated it. If I thought it was a maliscious rate I might go an leave a na na na na na comment in their guestbook but that would be motivated more by the enjoyment at winding someone up and my argumentative nature rather than in a fit of pique.

Guess "toss" can be added to the bad word thread.

Thingywhatsit wrote:

Okay case scenario. A dozen or so other people feel like you and walk away from rating. What happens is that the review keeps its standing and members glean from it that VH or E is the way to go with a review like that. In this circumstances if I really believed my gut feeling that the review was H, I would not hesitate to rate it as such, and explain in as polite a manner as I can why. People go by ratings, people do follow like sheep sometimes, and if a dozen other members felt the same and walked away, they then think the benchmark for diamonds is as stated in the ratings. Going on from this I even rated a diamond as a copy because I believed that it was. I have also found copies in crowns. Not something I particularly look for, but by rating, at least I feel I am being honest. They never did give that extra diamond to anyone else though which was a shame.

You are correct and I don't claim to be proud of my occasional non-rating behaviour but it's a 'rock and a hard place' - on one side you can say I'm not doing the right thing and on the other Chuchy would be sitting there counting the number of what she perceives as 'down rates' so I can't win.

Life's too short to take on every battle that comes along - I'm too busy fighting hungry grumpy Lipotrim users on dooyoo to invite criticism for my rating choices on Ciao.

Tempted to try the product just so I can write a half decent review !

Chuchy wrote:

koshkha wrote:

And to pick up on comments on other threads about readers feeling they don't like to go against the run of ratings, I have to admit that one of the ones I read this month was barely in English and when faced with a whole slew of Es and VH's I just left the review without giving a rate because my heart and brain said 'this is an H' but I didn't want the aggro that leaving one on such a high profile review would bring. Yes, it was cowardly and yes, I leave at least my share of the lower ratings in general, but discussions like this thread made me reluctant to be the first to point out that the review was poorly structured and semi-literate.

In those cases I can see that a lower rating is justified. But I cannot understand SH ratings on reviews that are generally well-structured and well-written, just because they don't comply with the rater's personal prescriptions.

Well structured can mean a lot of different things. I HATE reviews on things like toiletries and food, which arguably are "well structured" (but usually have unnecessary content.

If a review does not comply with my personal prescriptions of what helps ME to make a purchasing decision, then I will rate it as I find it. That is rating honestly. giving it a VH just because everyone else did is not.

Sometimes, however, I just walk away too, and don't rate, usually if I find it so boring that I don't even want to finish reading.

Thingywhatsit wrote:

Tempted to try the product just so I can write a half decent review !

I've told you, set up another forum for em, and divert them from dooyoo!!!