crowns

Consumers? You mean members, right?

And being hell bent on getting all VH ratings is a bad thing - that's why the peer review system is screwed and why reviews end up being less effective than they could/should be.

Members should be concerned with putting across the stuff they think is important and everything else should fall into place. It shouldn't be about the ratings, crowns or the money.

If what you want to say doesn't fit on a site such as dooyoo or Ciao, then go elsewhere where it will fit. The internet is full of places to post and if you can't find somewhere, start your own site/blog/messageboard.

I didn't say members who don't care about getting VUs or Us should be removed, i mean't that members who constantly get SUs or NUs should realise that you'll get more money if you improve. If they don't want to improve then they won't get good money.

But not everyone writes for money, or rather, the rate of pay isn't a factor.

I don't/wouldn't write for free. Ciao, Dooyoo and Helium are businesses and I'm not giving a business my work for free. The moment the rate of pay makes no sense to me, I'm gone. That's why I'm barely on Ciao any more. I cross post probably one review per month cos I know I'm a shoe-in for £2 from the PF. It's a waste of time cross-posting more than that. If my PF earnings drop below that, I'll stop posting altogether. Same goes for Helium, although my lack of activity on Helium is more to do with the members being cocks and the focus of Helium veering away from sharing knowledge to a writing clique.

So, I write what I want to write and take the payments and rates as they come. If I were to post something tomorrow that got all SUs, I really doubt I'd change anything as long as I was happy with the review.

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

But not everyone writes for money, or rather, the rate of pay isn't a factor.

True, i actually write because i enjoy writting reviews, the money just makes it sweeter.

I have one 'Not Useful' from 2675 ratings, mostly VUs.. Guess who that is from. LOL.

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Consumers? You mean members, right?

And being hell bent on getting all VH ratings is a bad thing - that's why the peer review system is screwed and why reviews end up being less effective than they could/should be.

Members should be concerned with putting across the stuff they think is important and everything else should fall into place. It shouldn't be about the ratings, crowns or the money.

If what you want to say doesn't fit on a site such as dooyoo or Ciao, then go elsewhere where it will fit. The internet is full of places to post and if you can't find somewhere, start your own site/blog/messageboard.

Who do you think you are? The god father of review writing? Im sure you dont need me to point out what products/services Dooyoo is made up of - in their majority to suggest that writers who write about experiences are consumers, literally.

Oh of course members should be concerned with putting across the stuff they want to publish, so why dont you just suggest to Dooyoo and Ciao to get rid of the pay system? Seems to me that this seems to be the only factor which stems the problems surrounding the quality of reviews brought into question. I think youre forgetting that everyone's viewpoint is individual. If you can think of another incentive, by all means suggest it.

Otherwise Im sure your arrogance isnt needed here.

Vax wrote:

Who do you think you are? The god father of review writing? Im sure you dont need me to point out what products/services Dooyoo is made up of - in their majority to suggest that writers who write about experiences are consumers, literally.

They're not the same though. Not in my opinion, anyway. Review site members are a particular subset of the overall group of consumers with specific differences. For example, the claims "reviews on Dooyoo are aimed at members" and "the reviews on Dooyoo are aimed at consumers" are not the same thing so when you talk about "consumers" rather than "members", I think you're referring to the wider group of people, not the narrow subset of members, not just in the instance above but all the time. Asking for clarification isn't a crime.

Vax wrote:

Oh of course members should be concerned with putting across the stuff they want to publish, so why dont you just suggest to Dooyoo and Ciao to get rid of the pay system? Seems to me that this seems to be the only factor which stems the problems surrounding the quality of reviews brought into question. I think youre forgetting that everyone's viewpoint is individual. If you can think of another incentive, by all means suggest it.

Otherwise Im sure your arrogance isnt needed here.

I'm not sure I understand you here. You say "Oh of course members should be concerned with putting across the stuff they want to publish" as if this is a well accepted point of view, but it's not, at least not by a large percentage of people. New people tend to write only what they consider important (until the members "educate" them) and the older hands settle in to that, too. The people in the middle ground are still running around trying to get all VHs, notch up Crowns etc. This is the same to a certain extent on Ciao.

I don't think that has anything to do with money in most cases, so I've no idea why you raised that question. Only some people seem to have an issue with people receiving money in this way. All I suggested was that if people were more concerned about being happy with their own reviews, then that more important thing that worrying about why someone "only" gave you a 'U' or why a review that gets 10 NUs still gets 30p.

And I don't think it's entirely necessary to get your knickers in a twist about it, either.

Lol calm down ladies.

As far as taking out the money system completely, that could lose older members that write for money and that could damage dooyoo's popularity.

The Dukes fallen out with someone! lol. He has a point though. Im a selfish writer in that I write whats good for me, not always dooyoo and the reader. The informative ops, and only that, can be dull. A good mix should win crowns.

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Consumers? You mean members, right?

Members should be concerned with putting across the stuff they think is important and everything else should fall into place. It shouldn't be about the ratings, crowns or the money.

Well for starters, here's your own quote. Even though members should be concerned, everything else doesnt naturally fall into place and thats the issue here. Because if everything else did fall into place Im sure there wouldnt be a selection of ratings available.

And as for me calling members, consumers, then What is a member? In my mind, Its a title which is given to people who sign up to forums, and therefore I feel thats all it means. I call members consumers purely because thats what we all are. Take any service on Dooyoo, or product, We consume services, we consume products, we report back - individually mind, and then other consumers/members who may have not tested that service get to consume the words written in order to inform themselves and then by choice have set ratings to rate the work/pieces in question. Does a member have use of a product/service outside review companies which are different from the general public??

Asking for a "clarification isn't a crime," but there is a danger to assume this means "ive improved my review so give me the better rating."

You yourself have already stated you won't write for free, so where's the compromise in all of this? I think you'll find that yes, whilst most new members write the info they want to contain (whilst the "older educate",) they'll only sign up for the money - that's the incentive. Id imagine it certainly wouldnt be just to see a golden crown by their name or to have their name published in the weekly/monthly emails from the home company.

As Ziggy has said crowned articles should have a good mix of content - and Im all for that.

I think the difference between members and consumers is an important one - the two are poles apart in my opinion.

I have read...I dont know...thousands of dooyoo reviews..but I have read probably 1% of those as agenuine and interested consumer...WHO HAS INTENTION TO BUY...

(I might have read another few percent and been inspired to make a purchase, but this is generally small change...books etc)

The motivation of Members (of which I am one) to write is many things. Initially money, and still is to an extent as I save up my vouchers, then there is recognition, pride in a job well done etc. as a member I might read as it is the only way I can maximise my earnings, but it also lets me form on line relations with others with similar interests and it might spark off a few ideas for activities/holidays etc.

However a Consumer doing genuine product research....has a thought in his/her head. He wants to buy a Car/book a hotel/investigate the new Ipod/Sat Nav etc.

S/he doesn't need specs as he has them/he might need to use price comparison sites, which is why s/he is on dooyoo/ciao, but more than likely he wants to know if a product is well received or not by previous purchasers.

Totally different motives for the site. Which is why some of the member advice given out is nonsense, as it is targeted at the mmber reader who has no intention of making a purchase instead of the informed Consumer Reader (who happens to know the exchange rate for America and does not think that leaving it out is an omission...or CDs are on offer at CDwow so price is not needed...or that Dell ship direct from wherever..and on and on)

Member rates are actually totally academic on review sites really. They might stimulate some activity and keep motivation going to produce content...but that is not the main reason for such sites..

Vax wrote:

Well for starters, here's your own quote. Even though members should be concerned, everything else doesnt naturally fall into place and thats the issue here. Because if everything else did fall into place Im sure there wouldnt be a selection of ratings available.

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. You're saying that if "things fell into place" as I've said above, because members are content writing what they feel happy writing about (i.e. their own experiences and thoughts without idiots telling them to include 500 words of company history or lists of technical specifications or pages of description) then the rating system is unnecessary?

I'm unsure how you've formed that opinion. If people weren't concerned about ratings or Crowns and were content with what they had posted themselves, then rated members wouldn't get so fucking uptight when they were given a low(er) rating, therefore rating members would be more inclined to give out a wider range of ratings, improving the effectiveness of the peer review system without worrying about falling out with a chum or offending someone because of the rating.

Ratings are still entirely necessary because people still have a huge range of experiences, ages, sexes, intelligence, desires, needs (and anything else that might influence a rating).

You wouldn't get identikit reviews that have same structure and information and that in itself would make for more interesting reading.

Vax wrote:

Asking for a "clarification isn't a crime," but there is a danger to assume this means "ive improved my review so give me the better rating."

FOIB and Dooyoo/Ciao are different. On this site (or Optors), asking for clarification isn't a crime, especially in the middle of a discussion when someone else isn't making themselves clear.

mm the way youre going on about it, seems like you want to form a review blue print for everyone to follow. Perhaps that would be good for Dooyoo to include on the site to show what a more than useful review could be.

My point is this, whilst I agreed that a series of NU reviews are indeed quite literally not helpful, Dooyoo shouldnt remove these writers to give them the benefit of the doubt and to allow them to update their reviews. However I do think Dooyoo should get rid of the money made on Not useful reviews.

Ziggy! wrote:

I have one 'Not Useful' from 2675 ratings, mostly VUs.. Guess who that is from. LOL.

That's very impressive Phil...but is this writing under your latest alias? I'm sure you might have had a few more NU's under your previous incarnations

Vax wrote:

mm the way youre going on about it, seems like you want to form a review blue print for everyone to follow. Perhaps that would be good for Dooyoo to include on the site to show what a more than useful review could be.

Actually, it's completely the opposite. I'm all for people posting what they are happy with and being content with whatever reward comes with that - ratings, payments, Crowns (or a lack of) rather than feel bullied into including superfluous information because some numpty has demanded the info in the comments.

Vax wrote:

My point is this, whilst I agreed that a series of NU reviews are indeed quite literally not helpful, Dooyoo shouldnt remove these writers to give them the benefit of the doubt and to allow them to update their reviews. However I do think Dooyoo should get rid of the money made on Not useful reviews.

And my point has always been that the liklihood that there is a legitimate overall NU review is so slim, it's not even worth considering. Practically all of the stuff that is rated NU overall is either off-topic or a breach of the T&Cs in some shape or form and will end up being removed from the site eventually.

Stunt_101 wrote:

Lol calm down ladies.

As far as taking out the money system completely, that could lose older members that write for money and that could damage dooyoo's popularity.

Forgive me for climbing on my sisterhood high horse but please don't be so effing patronising.
I don't see any women getting into this petty little fight - so why class the menfolk as 'ladies'?
Do you have any idea how offensive that is?

Please think before you post comments like that. And think about the last time a bunch of 'ladies' started a war - not easy is it. So don't go attributing cat fighting to those of us who are chromosomally challenged.

Rant over

And yes, before you ask, I have been on several diversity training courses thank you.

Sorry if i ofended you, didn't mean to be sexist or anything.

That's fine - I know it wasn't MEANT badly but I couldn't resist pointing it out. No hard feelings.

No hard feelings

Kick him in the nuts, B.

See - peace and tranquility in the forum.

OK, boys you can go back to fighting again now - Stunt and I have had our little e-cuddle so now you can do a bit of verbal beating up again.

Bye!

It's OK, B. The thread's over. I've made my point and am correct as per usual.

That will be the arrogance thing again, then. X