What makes a crown worthy review ?

helencbradshaw wrote:

But if we make a purchase then we DO go by manufacturer claims - Goods need to be as described and the law protects that.

I think the problem with reviews chunked out like this is they become templates for some people and we see lots of duplicate superfluous information in reviews - when a true purchaser will have done that already. If I want to buy a car I go to the manufacturer's website first - then I look for opinion...

Do we really go by the manufacturer claims? I dont think we can for everything. I'm sure the Law doesn't protect Nestle or Iams to make the claims it does thanks to the boycotting which goes on with both companies and without the internet consumers Im sure would still be kept in the dark.

Yes I see your point but then again if reviews are opinions then why should they appear to non-members? And where does it state that reviews need to have a newspaper report quality?

Whilst headings in reviews may well appear to be duplicated in other member's reviews where they may be superfluous in content, its no better than putting in copied screeds of tech spec taken from company websites anyway! Its like as a reader you have to separate what you have read and match it against the tech spec, and then have to weigh up whether the review is qualitable in terms of what it is trying to convey.

Headings allow members to get the info quickly- if they are properly used.

plipplop wrote:

Price

I paid £9.99

Colour

It's red.

Finish

It's made of plastic.

My opinion

It's lovely really.

I see your reviews are improving all the time Phil

That's what I hate - perhaps not quite this extreme, but banal paragraphs of useless information that I already know as a consumer (or any potential customer would already know..!)

Like the price of a typical CD. Put it in if you must, but don't write 8 sentences explaining if you drive 30 miles you can save 20p in Asda. (because that is what the sites are for are they not - price comparison?) I find it amazing that people would rate down for a reviewer not providing this level of anal detail - yes I know whats useful for some isn't useful for others but I think that takes the proverbial for FMCG etc.

Vax wrote:

Do we really go by the manufacturer claims? I dont think we can for everything. I'm sure the Law doesn't protect Nestle or Iams to make the claims it does thanks to the boycotting which goes on with both companies and without the internet consumers Im sure would still be kept in the dark.

We go by the manufacturers claims with regards to specification. So why repeat specifications? We all know big corporations try and put the best ethical slant on their products, but most of us don't fall for that stuff easily (and if we disagree with their ethics that strongly we dont purchase, which is a separate debate)

Vax wrote:

Yes I see your point but then again if reviews are opinions then why should they appear to non-members? And where does it state that reviews need to have a newspaper report quality?

I dont understand here....reviews should be relevant for non members. My typical review might get 60 reads on a good day. And I bet 99% of the time, non of those 60 intends to purchase that particular good. But some reviews have had close to 10000 non member reads. Writing for ourselves and members is not the raison d'etre for consumer sites..no it doesnt say we have to have a newspaper report quality (which itself is arguable these days). But I do know I like to read reasonably intelligent reviews and not ones that regurgitate information into a series of headings. Read the top 100 reviews on Ciao and see where this has been done badly....I can cope with it done reasonably well btw - just it is a bad habit of review sites and isnt done that well all that often.

Vax wrote:

Whilst headings in reviews may well appear to be duplicated in other member's reviews where they may be superfluous in content, its no better than putting in copied screeds of tech spec taken from company websites anyway! Its like as a reader you have to separate what you have read and match it against the tech spec, and then have to weigh up whether the review is qualitable in terms of what it is trying to convey.

But I dont want screeds of Tech Spec, that's my point!

I think most genuine shoppers reading reviews because they genuinely want to make a purchase want nowhere near the level of detail that is contained in the average E review. The Average E review is averaging E for the most part, on length..(sorry keep talking Ciao terms here, and we are on the dooyoo thread I think but the same logic applies)

One of the things I purchase on line with most regularity is Hotel accommodation. I know I harp on about this (and I know a lot about Hotel Accommodation as it happens) but I would rather 56 short punchy five paragraph reviews a la tripadvisor than a 2000 word epic giving me the tog rating of the quilt - because that's what members of review sites (WHO HAVE NO INTENTION TO MAKE SAID PURCHASE) tell me I should include. It's about your perception of the product and service, not lots of facts in tick boxes.

I recently did a review of a very important and very moving historical site in Europe. The decision to go there or not is not going to be on price (and how much can a museum cost? £5, £10 but not a life changing sum and anyone who can afford to travel to the area can afford a fiver) But I can guarantee I will get comments saying I didnt include the price, or even worse - I didnt translate it into Sterling for them...D'oh! but if you were planning on GOING they would know the exchange rate....it is just superfluous information we include as members tell us we should..my sister (who writes) was commenting on this the other day - people asking for the dollar exchange rate - it's on the news every day, and more importantly it moves every day so the dollar price is relevant the sterling price is not.

Vax wrote:

Headings allow members to get the info quickly- if they are properly used.

plipplop wrote:

What a load of rubbish! If the manufacturer quotes, for example, a wattage output at say 1600W and it's actually 1800W, what normal consumer would notice? And the manufacturer has to get it right by law (as Helen says). Besides, most reviewers on Dooyoo are only copying from the original source anyway!

What information would these "real" consumers be honing in on? Does anyone REALLY believe that consumers come to Dooyoo looking for a specific fact and then move off? I ain't convinced!

I'm sorry but if you think Official company stats are covered by law for everything then you're sadly mistaken. How can you define a "normal" consumer for starters?

Official company stats are not always correct whether they are covered by the law or not. For example Iams the great pet food provider state that their products are not tested on animals yet a MASSIVE BOYCOTT exists on the internet because there is evidence to prove that they do test on animals. Read the Boycott on Nestle before you reach to buy your next Milky Bar or have a mug of Nescafe. Open your eyes!!

And why should consumers visit Dooyoo anyway? Why feel the need to research products if there's the slightest hesitation that the company stats don't tell the full story? Consumers go to Helium, Ciao, Dooyoo, Epinions etc to get the real time story of experience and ownership from another person. Consumers have the right whether to take that info or not.

Reviewers may use original company stats for their source but reading the reviews sometimes opens up an entirely different situation against company spec and if sub headings are used within that review, used purposefully for the importance of features or features which go against the grain of stats I'm all for it!

Oh and by the way, Epinions members adore the use of Bold, Italic lettering not to mention the use of headings and sub headings...

Vax wrote:

I'm sorry but if you think Official company stats are covered by law for everything then you're sadly mistaken. How can you define a "normal" consumer for starters?

Official company stats are not always correct whether they are covered by the law or not. For example Iams the great pet food provider state that their products are not tested on animals yet a MASSIVE BOYCOTT exists on the internet because there is evidence to prove that they do test on animals. Read the Boycott on Nestle before you reach to buy your next Milky Bar or have a mug of Nescafe. Open your eyes!!

Erm, yes, I know that companies lie - that's why I subscribe to ethical consumer, but if they say a car comes with four wheels and a roof, then I think they are bound to do this. I don't think they are bound to disclose who supplied the wheels. That aside, if I ever saw a heading called ETHICS I think I'd fall off my chair and rate VH anyway.

I subscribe to Which? But I dont entirely agree with everything they test. I prefer to look online to reviews.

Vax wrote:

Oh and by the way, Epinions members adore the use of Bold, Italic lettering not to mention the use of headings and sub headings...

Oh well if they do it, it must be OK then. Whuh?

I see official company stats as very different from the kind of statement you make.

For example, (and I might not be right on this) it would be very easy to assume that Nescafe is no 1 IN TERMS OF MARKET SHARE...whether or not they are a company with no ethics (and I am a very ethical shopper on the whole). Or a survey somewhere said "8 out of 10 cats..."

But that is different from regurgitating lists like the following:

PROCESSOR
Intel core 2 duo T5500 / 1.66 GHz
Data bus speed: 667 MHz
Mobile intel 945PM express

CACHE MEMORY
L2 Cache
2MB

RAM
1 GB / 4 GB (max)
DDR II SDRAM
1 x 1 GB

STORAGE
Hard drive 120 GB

CARD READER
5 in 1 card reader
SD memory card, memory stick, memory stick PRO, multimedia card, xD-picture card

DISPLAY
15.4" TFT active matrix
1280 x 800 ( WXGA )
24-bit (16.7 million colours)
Crystalbrite

VIDEO
NVIDIA geforce go 7300 turbocache supporting 400MB
Video memory 128 MB
Max allocted RAM size 272 MB

POWER
External
AC 120/230 V (50/60 Hz)

BATTERY
6-cell lithium ion
Run time (up to) 2 hours

OPERATING SYSTEM / SOFTWARE
Microsoft windows vista home premium
Norton antivirus, acer launch manager, NTI CD-maker, Adobe reader


something like which appears every single day...!

Well for the U.S it must be plus the fact the whole of Epinions reviews are linked directly to most global web site search engines. Handy for when that consumer is looking for a review on something they're about to purchase.

Vax wrote:

I subscribe to Which? But I dont entirely agree with everything they test. I prefer to look online to reviews.

Yes - I agree - that's why I want people writing OPINIONS rather than paragraphs of facts with lovely little sub-headings that they copied off the web site in order to get a crown nomination.

but so are Ciao and Dooyoo...! and regardless of members adding products etc, as we know from dooyoo the lions share of new technical product specs are added automatically, and why wouldnt they be. It would be a fruitless task to add that lot manually.

In fact we know this from Ciao too, as it is the only reason we see 50 versions of memory stick loaded on the one day...!

Or bloody Toblerone

Here's another thought.. Given that Ciao (unless they have changed it since im no longer there - surprising how some people still ask if I am) used to give the option of adding photos, does anyone think the added photos option on Ciao would be an incentive to a Diamond worthy review, and if Dooyoo had the same policy of adding photos to reviews, would added pictures act as a bonus?

So much to reply to and so little time.

Headings:
I've probably said something here:
http://www.opinionators.co.uk/mainboard/viewtopic.php?t=1577

If not, at least you'll have had a giggle. Headings are over-used and poorly used, though there are times where they could prove useful in longer reviews.

"Stats":
There's no point in regurgitating stats because they're available everywhere else on the internet. A review on Dooyoo or Ciao shouldn't be your only source of information. If it is, then you're a fucktard that deserves to buy the shitiest goods you can. Dooyoo and Ciao are for the stuff you (supposedly) can't find anywhere else namely experience of the product and opinion on the product in real world scenarios.

Whether Dooyoo and Ciao are effective in giving that information is debatable, especially given the muppets that are out there turning these sites into their own MySpace site and are too busy leaving "Good morning..." messages to offer up valuable peer ratings.

If the company's operational ethics are your concern, it's arguable if they have a place within the review or in a standalone article on the subject of that company's operational ethics. Using the example from above: does it really fit into a Milky Way review or a Nestle review? If you mentioned it in any more than a sentence or two in a MW review, I'd probably rate you lower.

If you want to know it, then put it in. If it gets in the way for other potential consumers, they'll mark you down, but that's how peer review should work - assuming both authors and raters are thinking of the consumer.

Saying that, to make a point about something Helen said above - I try and include local prices in my travel reviews as well as a rough indicator of the exchange rate at the time I was there so that people can judge for themselves the prices. I also think it adds a little extra shelf life to travel reviews. I don't think it's necessary info, but it's handy to know.

There's probably tonnes more I could add, but I've already lost one post on this thread, so I'm quitting while I'm behind.

I think pictures can add to a review, for sure. Especially for travel related reviews (not sure I need to see yet more pics of the latest PS3!!)

I think they can give two otherwise equal reviews an added edge...but not sure pics alone give any incentive to diamond reviews.

I would like to see them on dooyoo though.

Images, like most other things on review sites, can add to a review if done properly. Whether most people would add images that can actually add to a review remains to be seen.

Pictures = almost as pointless as headings when they're collected together in a little frame at the end like some kind of photographic litter tray. Quite like the idea of placing photos at mid points during the review where appropriate but can't think of a single instance when I looked at any photos attached to a review.

In reference to the original question, I don't think a photo would make a review crown worthy as it bears no relation to the quality / content of the review. In fact, I think the same thing applies to headings.

plipplop wrote:

Pictures = almost as pointless as headings when they're collected together in a little frame at the end like some kind of photographic litter tray. Quite like the idea of placing photos at mid points during the review where appropriate but can't think of a single instance when I looked at any photos attached to a review.

In reference to the original question, I don't think a photo would make a review crown worthy as it bears no relation to the quality / content of the review. In fact, I think the same thing applies to headings.

I agree about photos but I don't understand people's blanket objections to headings...

Sure putting too many headings in a review or including inappropriate headings can detract from the review but headings can be useful especially in reviews that might contain a lot of information. A free flowing review can be a good way of presenting the info but for less talented writers maybe headings can help to organise the info more easily and thus make the review clearer.

I agree that reviews that for one reason or another are very long, heading can be very useful in organizing the content, but most reviews just don't happen to be that long to really need them. 500 - 1000 word reviews can IMO go easily without such structuring. And anybody who is less talented at writing can always easily structure their reviews outside with headings and just remove them afterwards, or use them as crutches to re-organize the content before posting.

I mean I used a lot of headings in the past, but upon taking a new look and removing them from most old reviews outside of a couple, the actual content worked just as well if not better without requiring any further alterations. There is always a skilful way of using headings, but many reviews just don't really need them, or people don't know how to really use them. I've noticed on some other members who used to use heading all the time to have abandoned them without actually altering their writing structure, and they are just as clear now as they were before.

I guess it's just a case of knowing what a review really needs to best present the information therein.

plipplop wrote:

dididave wrote:

I can see why people feel a need to use headings but I often think people use them to help themselves rather than members/consumers.

Agreed and fine - just hate the pretence they do it for the consumer. Yeah, whatever!

You know, only after reading this did i realise that reviews don't have headings normally. In gaming magazines they have sections yes, but not headings. I thought reviews would look really scrambled with none of them but after searching they look much better.

However, i do think some can be useful. The review itself yes can flow without headings but certain sections (such as extra information like price, manufacturer, website etc.) can be sectioned off easily with them. It'd over using them thats the problem-then you end up with something that has a heading every 3 lines,

I think a crown worthy review is a review that is readable, interesting to read, has plenty of opinion and all the necersarry info. It doesn't matter about length, headings or photos-if a review has everything needed it gets a nomination from me.

Vax wrote:

. . . does anyone think the added photos option on Ciao would be an incentive to a Diamond worthy review, and if Dooyoo had the same policy of adding photos to reviews, would added pictures act as a bonus?

Not all reviews with Diamonds (even since they were whittled down to 10) have added photos; nor does adding photos necessarily improve ratings.

l don't suppose it would make much difference unless initially as a novelty factor if introduced on Dooyoo

Ive noticed reviews getting crowned on Tuesday (crowns day) that have been up only one hour. How does that work?