Up rating.

mod note - can people be very careful not to use specific examples that can be EASILY traced through the site stats.

Mauri wrote:

All I'm saying is that people should rate as they see fit by their own stadards BUT remember that those standards have to be appropriate for the site and should generally conform to Ciao expectations as set out in the guidelines.

I agree with the above I just want to add some of my own thoughts to this.

I think the Ciao standards are quite high to start with compared to sites like Amazon or the Review Centre. I published a review about a year ago on the Review Centre website and it was awarded an "Expert" status by the administrators because they thought it was exceptionally helpful. If I was to publish the same review on Ciao it would barely reach an average H rating because the standards on Ciao are a lot higher.

Most of the reviews written by established members on Ciao will quite rightfully be considered VH or E, it's not a matter of sheep behaviour. In accordance with Ciao guidelines, most of the reviews are of a decent size, they contain full product descriptions as well as opinions based on personal experience and they are almost always well-written. I never read a review with the sole intent to find faults in it and I don't make up any rules either in addition to (or instead of) Ciao's guidelines. If a review conforms to the guidelines I will rate it VH or E, if they fall a little short I will rate them H. Only if they are obviously substandard (eg, one paragraph, unreadable, a silly joke or off-topic) will I give them a negative rate. Most people seem to apply the same criteria.

I think it's great that there are so many people willing to share their experiences with other consumers. I often find the lack of online information about certain products very frustrating, and the more people are willing to donate their time and energy to solve this problem the better. If they want to include information that's seemingly irrelevant like component lists or ingredients, I don't see anything wrong with that. Somebody is bound to find it useful and you can always skip that part if you are not interested. Manufacturers and retailers often don't bother to include proper product descriptions and any additional information can be helpful. Most consumers who look for information online, will also buy online, and won't have the luxury to look at the products in real life and read the information on the box. If it bores you to death, don't read it, but it doesn't mean that the review will be any less helpful.

Just to recap, from my perspective, the rating system on Ciao is designed to filter out the obviously bad reviews as described above. Apart from those, most reviews will be of quite high standards. Some people have taken it onto themselves to "improve the standards" on Ciao according to their own specifications. They are the "harsh raters". I think this is wrong, but that's obviously just my own opinion.

And once again, you make absolutely no mention of the over-raters - your beef is with people that rate lower. Over-raters are as bad, if not worse, than the so-called "harsh raters", yet because they're 'invisible', they never get as much grief and abuse as those who quite visibly rate against the grain.

If people did rate a little more honestly, then you'd find an awful lot more H, SH and NH ratings being given out on EVERYONE'S reviews, which in turn means that these "harsh raters" aren't standing on their own.

As stated previously (many, many, many times) a review should have a bigger spread of ratings. That they don't means that the peer review system on these sites is flawed and that's not because of the "harsh raters".

And being harsh isn't a crime... it's just another example of another characteristic that makes members different from one another such as social status, employment status, age, sex, interests etc.

Quote :

And once again, you make absolutely no mention of the over-raters - your beef is with people that rate lower. Over-raters are as bad, if not worse, than the so-called "harsh raters", yet because they're 'invisible', they never get as much grief and abuse as those who quite visibly rate against the grain

You may not be as accurate as you think you are on this one. If I find ratings that are unacceptably high and against the guidelines, I have tackled many members about it in a pleasant manner, in private, hoping that they will see sense and understand a little better what the rating system is about, and many really don't know and follow peer example. I was actually amazed with some of the conversations I have had, and there are many that just need a little guidance towards the rating guidelines on the member page.

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

they never get as much grief and abuse as those who quite visibly rate against the grain.

There's a difference between rating against the grain and rating unfairly.

Ciao's guidelines for SH rating - formerly known as "less helpful":

Rate a review "less helpful" if it gives somewhat inaccurate and/or poorly presented information. The review is not always objective or founded on evidence from the author's experience. The presentation and structure are unclear.

Yet, I've seen time and again that some members apply a completely different criteria of their own to justify the SH rate. This is unfair and very bad for the community spirit.

I feel members can rate differently as long as they justify their rating, and that their ratings are in accordance with each other. Sometimes the reader can feel it is perhaps marginal between the two and opt for one.

Also, unless you happen to be an expert in the field of every product, how do you know that the information in the review is accurate?

Quote :

I feel members can rate differently as long as they justify their rating, and that their ratings are in accordance with each other. Sometimes the reader can feel it is perhaps marginal between the two and opt for one.

I think you got your knickers in a twist here. Why should members ratings be in ACCORDANCE WITH EACH OTHER.

No I meant should have consistency in ratings. How do you know my knickers are in a twist?

You still got em in a twist. No, they should not be consistent with each other, but should be in consistance with Ciao guidelines. That is quite another matter.

Well I was thinking if I came across a 'good' review and gave it such a rating, and came across another equally 'good' review I would give it the same rating?

But does that not mean the majority are mis-using the 'Exceptional' rating? I don't believe all aspects of a product can be covered in a review.

Thingywhatsit wrote:

You may not be as accurate as you think you are on this one. If I find ratings that are unacceptably high and against the guidelines, I have tackled many members about it in a pleasant manner, in private, hoping that they will see sense and understand a little better what the rating system is about, and many really don't know and follow peer example. I was actually amazed with some of the conversations I have had, and there are many that just need a little guidance towards the rating guidelines on the member page.

How do you know, Rachel? In a review that gets 100 VHs/Es (which, statistically, it shouldn't get), how do you know which ones are over-rating and which are a reflection of the help the rater received? You can't. I can't.

The fact that there aren't any lower ratings does tell me that there is rampant over-rating, though (and the fact there are many such reviews back that point of view up).

You pick a wide range of 100 people of different types and ask them to rate a review on a scale of 1 to 4 and you WILL get different answers.

scream4bruce wrote:

I feel members can rate differently as long as they justify their rating, and that their ratings are in accordance with each other. Sometimes the reader can feel it is perhaps marginal between the two and opt for one.

Also, unless you happen to be an expert in the field of every product, how do you know that the information in the review is accurate?

So you can be unfair, as long as you are consistent about it?

You have to ASSUME that the information is accurate. You can't assume that it's not. However, if you have personal experience with the product and notice any inaccuracies, you will have a good reason to rate SH.

As we've said before I think some members feel bullied into rating a certain way which is a shame! Lisa x

But then ask them to rate within set guidelines and that slims down the odds doesn't it. I am talking about real big obvious over ratings. These are the ones that I tackle privately. An H review under ciao's guidelines getting E ratings which do not follow guidelines.

But then that could the reason for these ratings is that someone KNOWS it is inaccurate, but whereas you might not know.

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

You pick a wide range of 100 people of different types and ask them to rate a review on a scale of 1 to 4 and you WILL get different answers.

NOT IF ALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE USING THE SAME CRITERIA FOR RATING!!!

A total aside and one for our 'favourite member'. You once asked me if I was as peed off by being over-rated as being under-rated (assuming of course that those terms are short-hand for interpretation of the normal spread of opinion, blah blah blah)

Actually, I want to say YES. Amazingly a couple of weeks back I did actually receive what I consider to have been a 'Vindictive E' - one meant entirely insincerely by someone I KNEW (based on a previous rate and comment) didn't agree with me. And I was really angry about it. So yes, I don't like inappropriate use of an E.

scream4bruce wrote:

But then that could the reason for these ratings is that someone KNOWS it is inaccurate, but whereas you might not know.

Then they should clearly point it out and I wouldn't argue about it.

Chuchy wrote:

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

You pick a wide range of 100 people of different types and ask them to rate a review on a scale of 1 to 4 and you WILL get different answers.

NOT IF ALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE USING THE SAME CRITERIA FOR RATING!!!

But people's experiences, race, sex, age, education and all sorts of other things mean that people DON'T rate using the same criteria! That's why there's a range of ratings and you pick the one applicable to you (within the T&Cs)!

Fork me, is it really that hard to understand?

koshkha wrote:

A total aside and one for our 'favourite member'. You once asked me if I was as peed off by being over-rated as being under-rated (assuming of course that those terms are short-hand for interpretation of the normal spread of opinion, blah blah blah)

Actually, I want to say YES. Amazingly a couple of weeks back I did actually receive what I consider to have been a 'Vindictive E' - one meant entirely insincerely by someone I KNEW (based on a previous rate and comment) didn't agree with me. And I was really angry about it. So yes, I don't like inappropriate use of an E.

Quite.

I regularly see comments that say "Well, that went completely over my head" that follow a VH rating.

The obvious reply is "Well, if you couldn't understand it, how can it be VH?"

watch out for the bad words here please.

What bad words?

koshkha wrote:

Actually, I want to say YES. Amazingly a couple of weeks back I did actually receive what I consider to have been a 'Vindictive E' - one meant entirely insincerely by someone I KNEW (based on a previous rate and comment) didn't agree with me. And I was really angry about it. So yes, I don't like inappropriate use of an E.

I must say, I have used a vindictive 'E' once myself. I was really angry about a rate/comment (sorry, but I'm only human and I can't help myself) and I thought about retaliating with a similar low rate, but then I thought it would be below me to do that, so instead I gave her an E with a comment with a hidden meaning. I don't think she ever "got the message" but it made me feel so much better.

Yes, I have unfairly up-rated somebody - guilty as charged.

So what you're saying is, it's better than to 'over-rate' than 'under-rate'?

scream4bruce wrote:

So what you're saying is, it's better than to 'over-rate' than 'under-rate'?

Yes, I'd much rather over-rate someone than under-rate them unfairly.

I look at Ciao as a team effort to build a huge database of product information. It is counter-productive not to give people the credit they deserve. They will feel upset and angry about it and it's not good for the community spirit. I do believe that the majority of the reviews published on Ciao are VH. You can call me a sheep, a VH-whore, whatever, I won't get offended by that. What I do get offended by are unfair negative ratings.