CLICK VERSUS READS

It has upset many members of dooyoo that the speed at which they click reviews has meant them being warned or banned, whilst other users do the same thing. I have to say I have noticed members that click on a review rather than read it and would have no qualms about reporting this. It's pretty clear if a review is posted one minute and rated after one second that the person didn't read it. Conversely, there is the argument that it has already been read on ciao, though members should remember that dooyoo don't know that, and be reasonable with their rating of reviews. The problems that are being shown now are that not only do clickers get kicked off the site, but all members suffer because they lose the reads gained from that person clicking. Reasonable rating means that you are giving respect to those people whom you choose to read. What do other members feel and if that ruling applies to some, should it be applied across the board ?

I think there's more to it than simple click/read speed.

Even if you're a fast reader, if you're giving out a range of rates, then that implies that you are reading and taking in the contents of reviews. If you're reading fast, but only hitting the VH button, then it looks to Dooyoo like you're just rating for rating's sake.

Lastly: who's to say that this ruling isn't being applied to all members? If it's a program that's picking up on people's reading habits, then of course it's being applied site wide!

Most people dont read every word they see on dooyoo, dooyoo just wont exist as a commercial website if if members do read every word, the point people forget. Its all very well siting back and lobbing up on review every month and rating maybe ten others a week, but that just isnt sustainable, and it others that have to take the can for that apathy. I think most members would like to not have to read and rate so much, but it is the only way to make money and so the site to function.

Quote :

Lastly: who's to say that this ruling isn't being applied to all members? If it's a program that's picking up on people's reading habits, then of course it's being applied site wide!
_________________

I am not sure if there is a program. I still say there are members out there that click and do not read reviews. Just take a look at the new in list, and within seconds of a review being posted, they are rated.

I'm nearly sure it is a program that reports these members.

Statment wrote:

Most people dont read every word they see on dooyoo, dooyoo just wont exist as a commercial website if if members do read every word, the point people forget. Its all very well siting back and lobbing up on review every month and rating maybe ten others a week, but that just isnt sustainable, and it others that have to take the can for that apathy. I think most members would like to not have to read and rate so much, but it is the only way to make money and so the site to function.

These aren't facts, Phil. These are your theories. How do you come to these conclusions?

"Dooyoo won't exist as a commercial website if if (sic) members do read every word"?

Where does that come from?

Any chance you could actually get around to providing a little more than just vague theories, perhaps with a bit of logic or showing some examples to back up these theories?

There is a program running on the site which flags super quick raters to Jared. Lisa x

*polishes fingernails*

Toenails as well? Lisa x

Yep, I hope people read but I don't worry too much if they don't.

Maybe I'm naive on how these things work but surely the more clicks a review gets from anyone and anywhere (member or non-member), the better the chance that it appears near the top of any 'google list' when a member of the public searches for something.

I base this on a day of frantic clicking that the website designer indulged in on a website I worked on in order to get the site up to the top of the google listings for the company name.

I assume that's how these click-for-money type sites work.

On that basis, why would dooyoo care whether people read or not if it helps to get our reviews googled more often and drives more people to the site?

Or did I get that completely wrong?

As a post on the General Review site board has shown people can read fast and some members can read through reviews in 2 minutes.

Plus, many people probably skim read if they are not interested in it. People do rate for the sake of rating on the sites, it is obvious. Many people i can pretty much guess don't game read my reviews, and i certainly won't be buying mascara and people will read slower if it interests them. It's a community and many people read reviews of people who have rated them. As long as they can give a fair rate then it is fine, and don't (as already said) hit the VU button always.

koshkha wrote:

Yep, I hope people read but I don't worry too much if they don't.

Maybe I'm naive on how these things work but surely the more clicks a review gets from anyone and anywhere (member or non-member), the better the chance that it appears near the top of any 'google list' when a member of the public searches for something.

I base this on a day of frantic clicking that the website designer indulged in on a website I worked on in order to get the site up to the top of the google listings for the company name.

I assume that's how these click-for-money type sites work.

On that basis, why would dooyoo care whether people read or not if it helps to get our reviews googled more often and drives more people to the site?

Or did I get that completely wrong?

It is no doubt in the Terms and Conditions. If you want to know about a product then read and rate but what is the point of pretending to read yet still, rate? For personal profit. These people know that by reading others reviews they will get rated back, costing dooyoo money. Thats one of the reasons i can think of anyway.

How can you give a fair rate if you haven't read the review? How can your rate be fair if you are not interested in the subject matter and know nothing about it?

CareBear wrote:

How can you give a fair rate if you haven't read the review? How can your rate be fair if you are not interested in the subject matter and know nothing about it?

No, people will read the review but just fast-so they will be able to give a fair rate. I can rate many reviews if i am not interested in the subject topic fair. For example, a movie review. It may be a huge chick flick i know i will hate but i know a good review will be made up of personal opinion, story and character information. You read reviews to find out about products.

Skim reading is sometimes a good thing and people can read reviews in 32 minutes and will know the information. They at the end of the review may not be able to recall in the reviewers word's how the director did a marvellous job of the camera, but they will be able to rate fairly since they'll have read in depth story etc. As shown in the topic i mentioned before, some people can read many words per minute and still remember a lot.

Ah yes, but with a film or anything you are reading to find out about a product you have an interest, even if you think it'll be a negative one.

Skim reading is not reading fully and, as such, nuances might be missed that add or detract from usefulness.

'scuse lack of quotes - babe in arms!

But what do i want from say,a mascara review. Being a 16 year old boy i don't care about mascara myself, or wouldn't be able to review it myself. -> Yet i know that ingredients and warnings could be put in a review, along with how easy it is to use, price, where to buy from, how good it is.

If i read a thousand word review in around two minutes i would still be able to tell these are in it and would have read the review so would still know what i have read. It would just mean that i will not be able to recall the review a day later. Why would i need to? It doesn't affect me but i have read it so can give a fair rating.

all i can say is that you're a rare bloke who a) is interested enough to read and b) can second guess wha is important to a girl!

I don't think it has anything to do with recall.

By the same vein i could rate a review on a motorbike... trouble is i'd apply the same priciples as you and, consequently could end up thinking that a load of rubbish is actually a good review cos i don't know any better... it could all be made up!

CareBear wrote:

How can you give a fair rate if you haven't read the review? How can your rate be fair if you are not interested in the subject matter and know nothing about it?

One example I can think of is if you start reading a review and give up because you're not being told what you want to know. I've done this myself - gotten a third of the way through a review and then said "Fork this for a game of soldiers" as the author hadn't told me what I wanted to know. I SHed and left a comment. I did, however, carefully read the portion of the review that I had opened.

Aaron, that's kind of what I was saying. I was naiively assuming the rate in question was good....

I would give an example here too. I read one review which was aimed at technical people although the product was of interest to me, although it may have covered useage, it did so in a way that I didn't understand and might as well have been written in dutch. I rated SH against the grain because it really was like reading a foreign language.

that'sd wha i'd dp too. but the important thing was that you had aninterest

I am always interested in software. There are so many programs that help a computer user improve their experience and I am always open to new ones if I think they will help me.

So it's not bad that when you start to read a review but cannot finish reading it because it's un-readable, but you still rate it?

Of course. I wouldn't open a review if I didn't intend to rate it, but if it is presented in such a way that it bores BAD WORD out of me before getting to the point, then it will get the appropriate rating.

Stunt_101 wrote:

So it's not bad that when you start to read a review but cannot finish reading it because it's un-readable, but you still rate it?

Of course. If it's unreadable, then I assume that makes it harder to extract the information and in turn makes it less useful.

But who can honestly say they are interested in a games review? I speak to many people who read my reviews and whilst some play games a lot and some a little, i know many don't. Sometimes it may be better. One member that largely helped me in shortening me reviews i doubt played games and therefore knew what was in my review that need not be.