Apologies

Having logged on today, to read and rate yesterdays reviews. I am dismayed to see that whereas revierws (written yesterday) by shall we say established members have reveived on average around 40 reads/rates, there are (or at least were until I read and rated them) around 20 new member reviws that had not received one single rate when I have found around 30% of these to be VH. Why should new members miss out from having their work rated? I am a great believer in the fact that the new members of today would hopefully become the established members of the future. And I dont see how this can happen if established members don't read their work!

oops actually I meant the reviews from 31st May.... crikey I'm so far behind

People can read what they like...and of course people will naturally gravitate to people as they get to know them as well as they like their style. Some writers always get high volumes of rates - as people enjoy their work..! That's life!

I haven't read anything lately (and I don't get massive rates) ...but I make no apologies for who and what I read in my own time. I read what inspires me..

I read reviews on things I like to read and if it means that I don't read anything for ages so be it. But I read new members as well as old members as long as what they are writing about is what I want to read.

ok point take, I didn't mean to cause offence but I just thought what is the point in new members writing reviews if no-one reads tham and if necessary points them in the right direction. After all, todays new members are tomorrows future members.

Minnitee wrote:

When I decided to resurface on Ciao last year with a brand new identity nobody knew I had returned and to my surprise my reviews received VH ratings thoughout, most people still don't know who I used to be.

But did you intentionally write a review that would usually attract lower rates? I did a 500 word music review, which many would consider not long enough for the subject matter, and still get 86% VH's. And the other review I intentionally tried to make as close to the other in information content and while it attracted a couple of VH's, most were H's (& one SH). I just have a feeling if I had posted my "established" review as an unknown, it would have been rated lower on average.

But of course those results are still subject to interpretation. The only way to get proper results would be to go back in time and post my first review as an unknown.

Oh, and before somebody moderates me for direct pointing to reviews, I'll just say it wouldn't sway me one way or the other. I still got £55 on my account I can't get my hands on, and I'm not sentimental about getting one more rate as at this point I'm not really serious about Ciao at all.

TheHairyGodmother wrote:

ok point take, I didn't mean to cause offence but I just thought what is the point in new members writing reviews if no-one reads tham and if necessary points them in the right direction. After all, todays new members are tomorrows future members.

I just wonder perhaps if there are members who have simply stuck to reading those in their COT and on their alerts... some of the attitudes towards new authors as a whole from members leave a lot to be desired.

Certainly at the moment it seems to be at a low, perhaps it's a combination of the POW competitions and quick reviews?

In regards to reading reviews.. I will, and have done for ages, freely admitted to reading those in my COT and on alerts, people who read mine and as many of the new DVD/Film reviews as I can manage.

From my point of view there is only so much time I can spend reading on Ciao and Dooyoo and so will concentrate on those who will read my stuff as well, after all as much as I like to write and enjoy it I post to make a little pocket money as well

My time is limited. Currently, I'm concentrating on Dooyoo and cross-posting when I write something to soak up some reads/PF cash. I'm on Helium too, but that site changes so often, I've no idea what's what. If they sort themselves out, I'd probably be a little more active there than Ciao, too.

Ciao's just not attractive any more. Here's what's happened to me in 2007:

• banned for a few days for reasons that still haven't been explained to me by Ciao
  
• kicked out of a survey 20 mins/90% into it because "I didn't fit the target group" and Ciao never replied to any email I sent on the matter
  
• my profile picture was removed by Ciao, for arguably racist reasons, because some immature/stupid tosser reported it in an act of pettiness (although not before having a dig at me on a review published on Ciao)
  
• an email sent outside of normal contact circles voicing serious concerns about the management of Ciao UK and the lack of customer support went un-heeded (and I even had to send a follow up on that one too)
  

Sorry new members, but it's not worth it anymore with that kind of people as members and those kind of people in charge.

Dedicated, sensible gardeners always have a rough bit where they let the grass and weeds grow without intrusion. The idea is that it keeps all the bugs and nasties away from the rest of the garden such that the main part can be enjoyed by those who truly appreciate horticulture.

I see Ciao as Dooyoo's wild patch, keeping all the nasties well away from anyone who just wants to read and write in peace. I wouldn't change Ciao at all - it would be like mowing the long grass. Who knows what would come out???

You really do have a way with words Phil, that is the perfect analogy!

Great analogy for sure... completely not true at all though.. you only have to look at Dooyoo at the moment to find a whole buch of new people posting 5 or 6 rubbish reviews a day and not reading anyone elses stuff either. So they are obviously not the best of Ciao coming over

You have misunderstood it then. It's not about new people posting what you deem 'rubbish' reviews, my take on it (and I am sure Phil can correct me if I am wrong) is that it is about the behaviour of the average ciao member versus the dooyoo ones....

"...and READ...I am staggered at the amount of so called helpful comments that are received where the problem is the person rating is reading with their completely ignorant viewpoint and often with a total lack of interest in the product/service...rather than reading as an interested party (who therefore has some basic knowledge of the product/service)."

I would agree. on this. I've seen comments on reviews by peole who are not the target audience asking for stuff that someone who did know a little bit about the product would not need to know. i used to give out the advice. pretend you were deswcribing the product to an alien. Now i would say keep the consumer in mind.

duskmaiden wrote:

I would agree. on this. I've seen comments on reviews by peole who are not the target audience asking for stuff that someone who did know a little bit about the product would not need to know. i used to give out the advice. pretend you were deswcribing the product to an alien. Now i would say keep the consumer in mind.

Oh my - this debate again!

If you vote like that, then you are not voting how useful/helpful ,<b>you</b> found the review. Which, the last time I checked, is what the question above the rating buttons is.

Hmm yes I guess it could be read and meant that way... I took it to mean keeping the nasties away in the sense that the best people move over to Dooyoo cos they are fed up with what happens on Ciao... kinda the same but not quite. Could be either way though I guess.

And surely going by your answer to the next message down my views on what are rubbish are all that matters in my own rating thoughts on things so there was no need to put it in ' '

What is considered 'abuse' is really dependant on what you think these sites are for.

If they are purely or primarily community sites, then you could define 'being nasty' etc as abuse. You could even castigate people for pointing out poor grammar, spelling or writing, IF the site is primarily a community site.

However, if the site is a consumer resource, then pointing out bad grammar (for example) is a good thing (so long as one isn't rude). Low ratings ditto - if everyone rates everyone else VH in order to avoid hurting the thin skinned Ciao members, then peer review is failing, and the consumer cannot distinguish easily the useful from useless. Commenting to point out inaccuracies in a review (factual inaccuracies) or indeed disagreeing with the opinion (as that is part of the decision making process) should also be encouraged.

Whilst downright rudeness is unpleasant, counter-productive and undesirable, too much 'fluffiness' is self defeating for a consumer site (if the purpose of said site is to help a consumer choose a product).

There are people around the sites and the forums who seem to think that 'trying hard' is good enough for VH or E. It isn't.

I bow to your brilliant explanation there that is completely spot on... oh and I love your little pic of the phoenix(??)

Nathan I have to say your 'cut and pasted'message used to drive me mad... not becuase of what it said.. just the cut and pasting... I HATE that. However I see you're around on Ciao again and wish you luck.. did you get your £50!

My bad, if you'd told me I would have cutted it out -- honest -- I'm not one of those sorts to bite your head off, and I hope that comes across from me on Ciao. Sadly they never answered any of my emails, and I never got that £50 returned.

I guess I just have to move on with my life