Product of the week competition

saw an about me that basically said don't read myrate my review if you are entering same competition. That's a sad state of affairs

PoW is chosen by the members? I always thought it was Ciao and they just used the ratings as some sort of guide. Nevertheless I have already had someone approach me today saying I downgraded them on the new PoW for my own benefit, even though I have only entered two PoW's ever and have no experience with the new product this week. Is my reputation on Ciao really that glorious?

I saw the same "about me" although it's now changed. In some respects I agree with the idea of not rating others in the comp if you've taken or are going to take part in the comp until after the comp is over to prevent accusations like nathan got.

In part I need to eat my words from my previous post though because I won this week which really does surprise me, but, like Nathan, at the point I posted I didn't realise it was a member pick rather than a Ciao pick.

Not sure I like the whole thing though...

It's a particularly nasty thing the POW and I hope they get shot of it sooner rather than later. It seems to encourage stupid behaviour and I really can't see what possible value it adds to the site.

well, l usually ignore POW for the reason of having been so accused until after the decision ~~ however, certain members' rates have always been given more weight in overall ratings by Ciao, so it's not a pure 'beauty contest' ~~~~

l feel most sorry for people who post their review just BEFORE it is POW. . .

jesi wrote:

however, certain members' rates have always been given more weight in overall ratings by Ciao, so it's not a pure 'beauty contest'

Is this true? Is there any proof of this? If so, I think this is shocking.

Either way, I wouldn't let the PoW competition stop me from rating. If people are going to be that petty, you'll get accused of something no matter what, especially on Ciao where Chinese Whispers abound in the PGBs. You shouldn't let yourself get bullied into not rating just because some fucktard throws groundless accusations around.

has anyone emailed Ciao voicing their concerned about the PoW compo and what it's producing on site?

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Is this true? Is there any proof of this? If so, I think this is shocking.

Well, if you click on the ratings link beside your review it tells you so. lt has always said that the overall rating is not just a straightforward average of ratings received.

lt doesn't explain how weightings are decided to allow one member's vote to carry more weight than another, although l have, in the past, anyway, believed that respect and consistency might play a part in the computerised formula used, just like a new member must gain their first 1001 cps before being allowed to upload photos (501 at www.ciao.de), and a member must now have at least one 'helpful' review before they can rate or comment on other reviews.

koshkha wrote:

. . . I really can't see what possible value it adds to the site.

The possible value is a few extra reviews for NON-MEMBERS to use to make their decisions ~ and more reviews to encourage advertisers to invest in THIS site.

ln the database view, it is good to have a choice to pick and choose.

To improve excellence, more photos are also uploaded on PoW, to try to give the review an 'edge' ~~ this, too, is good.

An advantage of the photos is that, even when a review is not as straightfoward as the reader might want, floating the mouse over small photos or opening the 'multiple author' photo images on top to read captions can explain details difficult to express.

lt is better monitored than initially, and was the cause of the new no rating/commenting without a 'helpful' rating rule which has stopped some revenge rating, without the need for removal of rates and comments by members whose accounts may have been opened for the purpose of rating/commenting only.

l do dislike the bickering it can induce; l can just see benefits from a different point of view.

jesi wrote:

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Is this true? Is there any proof of this? If so, I think this is shocking.

Well, if you click on the ratings link beside your review it tells you so. lt has always said that the overall rating is not just a straightforward average of ratings received.

lt doesn't explain how weightings are decided to allow one member's vote to carry more weight than another, although l have, in the past, anyway, believed that respect and consistency might play a part in the computerised formula used, just like a new member must gain their first 1001 cps before being allowed to upload photos (501 at www.ciao.de), and a member must now have at least one 'helpful' review before they can rate or comment on other reviews.

But Ciao have never behaved in a way to suggest that this is the case. Those around the site over the years that I believed were good raters were often hounded and abused for leaving the very ratings that marked them as good raters and Ciao quite often simply removed rates when reported to stop upset around the site and stopped members rating each other. That doesn't work in a system where respect and consistency are important as you suggest. You leave blanket VUs on all reviews on Ciao and you will gain chums and CPs with abandon, but all that does is get you a nicely coloured dot. The people who should be treated with respect are those that end up hounded off the site by the combination of the community and inept Ciao policing of the site. So in the end, any weighting of rates is ultimately flawed because otherwise Ciao would attempt to get people to rate properly and we all know that over-rating is rife on the Orange site.

l'm not silver yet, but then, l've only written 88 reviews and 2 QR; l don't leave sheep ratings, and few 'E's. l also leave few negative ratings, preferring to make suggestions first, and rate when the review has been revised.

l also try to avoid controversy and confrontation wherever l can.

l don't think being a good rater is consistent with trying to bully others to accept your point of view; however, l also think people need to understand differing needs of different websites when they are writing reviews for those websites.

l think, on the whole, Product of the Week has been counter-productive, as far as encouraging and rewarding excellence is concerned. But it HAS encouraged some writers to improve their research and writing skills, and, where people are not afraid to explain ratings and accept other opinions, it can build community.

lncidentally, l wouldn't call Ciao! "the Orange site" as it has not been predominatingly orange for over 4 years . . .


. . . . ~ ! ♥♥ ! ~ ........................................................... ~ jes ~ ! ♥♥ !

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

... So in the end, any weighting of rates is ultimately flawed ...

l am not denying that weighting of ratings will almost ALWAYS be flawed ~ even by definition ~ l was merely stating that Ciao! have always admitted that there IS weighting of ratings, and that WHATEVER their weighting system, and HOWEVER flawed, it exists, thus making the overall ratings not merely a pure 'mates-rates' contest

My assumption was that if a user always rates HIGH (you know the ones that 'run out' of E's every day) then the system gives less weight to an E from them than it would from someone who uses them more sparingly. Conversely, someone like the member I found recently who'd given 82% H might carry less of an H-power than one that handed them out less often.

You could be right, Barbara.




. . . after all . . . it's just a website . . .


Actually, l like your theory.

jesi wrote:

l'm not silver yet, but then, l've only written 88 reviews and 2 QR; l don't leave sheep ratings, and few 'E's. l also leave few negative ratings, preferring to make suggestions first, and rate when the review has been revised.

l also try to avoid controversy and confrontation wherever l can.

l don't think being a good rater is consistent with trying to bully others to accept your point of view; however, l also think people need to understand differing needs of different websites when they are writing reviews for those websites.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my post.

Jessie wrote:

l think, on the whole, Product of the Week has been counter-productive, as far as encouraging and rewarding excellence is concerned.

So then the PoW falls into the same category as Diamonds because the best reviews each month generally speaking aren't the ones being given the big payouts and you can get a diamond should you wish to write a 2500 word review of a mobile phone, complete with techncial specifications in list form and a detailed descriptiuon of what the phone does and not the important bits like the whys and your opinion. If you want to whore yourself for the money, it's possible to do.

Jessie wrote:

But it HAS encouraged some writers to improve their research and writing skills, and, where people are not afraid to explain ratings and accept other opinions, it can build community.

Has it really done this over and above the normal rate of people who take advice on board or is the rate of reviewers who do the PoW and go on to improve their work bigger than those that simply post in general around the site?

The hard part is still getting people to accept ratesand as long as the majority don't (which I believe to be the case), then the community will always be an evil entity and a negative, not positive, influence on the site.

jesi wrote:

l am not denying that weighting of ratings will almost ALWAYS be flawed ~ even by definition ~ l was merely stating that Ciao! have always admitted that there IS weighting of ratings, and that WHATEVER their weighting system, and HOWEVER flawed, it exists, thus making the overall ratings not merely a pure 'mates-rates' contest

I don't see any hard evidence to suggest that rate weighting goes on. Ciao have never acted in such a way to let me believe they even care about rates, often siding with those that complain even when there's no evidence of wrong-doing. They might say that the is weighting going on, but they also say that the best reviews each month get diamonds which is not right.

jesi wrote:

l am not denying that weighting of ratings will almost ALWAYS be flawed ~ even by definition ~ l was merely stating that Ciao! have always admitted that there IS weighting of ratings, and that WHATEVER their weighting system, and HOWEVER flawed, it exists, thus making the overall ratings not merely a pure 'mates-rates' contest

Not true. The weighting is based on the community-point status of the rater. Community points are easily accumulated through mate-rating. Not necessarily a problem for the metallics who may (or may not) be a little wiser to it, but certainly your reds and oranges carry more clout than those below them.

I think, therefore, that the weighting based on dots just accentuates the mates-rates contest.

Whilst I like Barbara's idea for how the weighting works I very much doubt that it is the case and I would concur with Phil that, at least in the past, that was how ratings were explained to me when I asked.

Having said that, like Aaron, I've yet to see any concrete evidence that it really is in play.

What I do know is that I'm feeling less free to rate as I see fit on the site and, as a result, am actually more likely to post and run (or actually read but not rate) than I ever was. Sad really.

CareBear wrote:

Having said that, like Aaron, I've yet to see any concrete evidence that it really is in play.

I agree.

jesi wrote:

l'
But it HAS encouraged some writers to improve their research and writing skills, and, where people are not afraid to explain ratings and accept other opinions, it can build community.

Do you actually need research skills for product reviews especially something like product of the week? A lot of the research done is as already said is padding and irrelevant.

duskmaiden wrote:

jesi wrote:

l'
But it HAS encouraged some writers to improve their research and writing skills, and, where people are not afraid to explain ratings and accept other opinions, it can build community.

Do you actually need research skills for product reviews especially something like product of the week? A lot of the research done is as already said is padding and irrelevant.

Actually research is very important if you have no personal experience of the product and need to pad out a review.