May Diamonds

marymoose99 wrote:

Can I join you two for a Sundae in the Cafe?

Of course, but you are paying.

The problem with Ciao is, as I said elsewhere it doesnt work how it is meant .

People rate their friends higher and people folow rates when they see it.
I guarantee that I could 'arrange' for one of my reviews to get loads of E's just by manipulating the raters. I get less E's then I ever used to because most of the people I was good friends with have left (well I think its that reason after all ym writing style hasnt changed at all) and I rate fairly in my mind now and do give out a lot of lower rates cos i think thats what the review is worth.

Ciao reviews are really not much like real reviews anyway, are they? Come on, seriously - when have you ever seen a professional reviewer commenting on the colour of the packaging on an individual rowntree's fruit gum? How does that help a consumer? But if you don't do it on Ciao, some fool is probably gonna mention it in your comments.
What I'm saying is - you may as well not bother with the 'template' for reviews. I think that writing them in your own style (regardless of the ultimate goal of the revered diamond) is a far more satisfying way of going about it. Plus, then you do get honest feedback according to your own personal way of writing. And, if somehow you're lucky enough to get a diamond, you know it's completely because of your original review, rather than just the favoured template.
Works for me, anyway.

Ciao reviews are nothing like real reviews in the main, and raters are nothing like sensible either!

I have just read a film review which once again gives away every single detail of the film from start to finish and yet it has rates of VH & H... how can a review that ruins the film be helpful in any way to anyone reading it!

Some fool can mention 'it' all they want in the comments (packaging colour), but it's up to the writing members to ignore that and deal exclusively with their own experiences and opinions. If you have no need to mention it, then don't. Just post and take the ratings as they come.

(And yes, film spoilers are on the rise. That's "bunker thinking" apparently.)

Why does this happen every month - the same old bitch-fest about the diamonds?

Everymonth the forum has a good old moan about one or two of the diamond reviews, (in this case marymoose sadly seemed to lay herself open as a human sacrifice to have her approach torn to shreds thus saving some other poor soul who'd done a scene by scene or page by page review from a mauling).

Every month we rediscover that almost none of us think a diamond is an indicator or quality. We cogitate on the 'secret of getting a diamond' and sling a lot of mud around.

Can we maybe just give it a rest one month and stop stirring up the bitter pot of nastiness? I find it's all getting about as boring as a DVD player review.

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Some fool can mention 'it' all they want in the comments (packaging colour), but it's up to the writing members to ignore that and deal exclusively with their own experiences and opinions. If you have no need to mention it, then don't. Just post and take the ratings as they come.

(And yes, film spoilers are on the rise. That's "bunker thinking" apparently.)

Bunker thinking????

koshkha wrote:

Why does this happen every month - the same old bitch-fest about the diamonds?

Everymonth the forum has a good old moan about one or two of the diamond reviews, (in this case marymoose sadly seemed to lay herself open as a human sacrifice to have her approach torn to shreds thus saving some other poor soul who'd done a scene by scene or page by page review from a mauling).

Every month we rediscover that almost none of us think a diamond is an indicator or quality. We cogitate on the 'secret of getting a diamond' and sling a lot of mud around.

Can we maybe just give it a rest one month and stop stirring up the bitter pot of nastiness? I find it's all getting about as boring as a DVD player review.

Most of my posts on this thread are more to do with the inability of members to take a rating lower than VH, the reactions of those that do get a so-called "lower" rating and stuff that goes along with that. I've mainly avoided the diamonds this month… as you say, it's just the same old thing.

I'd like to add though that I don't think it's nasty, at least not towards members. Ciao are the people to blame for the diamonds for suggesting one way of writing reviews and yet rewarding another.

Ailran wrote:

Bunker thinking????

That's what I was told. Means nothing to me, mind you.

Well a lot of good you are then!

Means nothing to me either!

koshkha wrote:

Why does this happen every month - the same old bitch-fest about the diamonds?

.

It's a form of sport

It's ridiculous though...it's a lottery and not worth getting upset over..because it will never change!

Ailran wrote:

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Some fool can mention 'it' all they want in the comments (packaging colour), but it's up to the writing members to ignore that and deal exclusively with their own experiences and opinions. If you have no need to mention it, then don't. Just post and take the ratings as they come.

(And yes, film spoilers are on the rise. That's "bunker thinking" apparently.)

Bunker thinking????

Inward looking...silo thinking..not outside the box...not blue sky...etc..!

[quote="helencbradshaw"

It's ridiculous though...it's a lottery and not worth getting upset over..because it will never change![/quote]

The only thing that puzzles me is why people keep contributing to the site when it's such a pointless, corrupt exercise. All the time Ciao gets plenty of contributors they're unlikely to change the way they do things. Accept as it is and contribute or stop contributing full stop.

I do accept it as it is...or I wouldn't be there...!!!

Nor am I that desperate for a diamond or a tenner!

Sure - I was just generalising around the issue really - if people are happy with the site as is then good for them!

helencbradshaw wrote:

Ailran wrote:

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Some fool can mention 'it' all they want in the comments (packaging colour), but it's up to the writing members to ignore that and deal exclusively with their own experiences and opinions. If you have no need to mention it, then don't. Just post and take the ratings as they come.

(And yes, film spoilers are on the rise. That's "bunker thinking" apparently.)

Bunker thinking????

Inward looking...silo thinking..not outside the box...not blue sky...etc..!

Always understood the phrase to be "bunker mentality" rather than "bunker thinking" which is why Aaron confused people, mind you anyone who has ever read one of his non-diamond winning helpful reviews will be familiar with such poor use of the language.

Ah thats explains a lot then, will have to read his reviews and then work out how that phrase fits with the use of spoliers

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

quote]



Think about the times your friends have recommended things to you – have they, in any way, resembled the majority of Ciao reviews?

That's silly. The two are completely different we communicate differently when we speak or when we write, the information is presented differently, I suspect even you don't communicate with your friends in the pub the same way you write reviews...

If you were to liken most of Ciao reviews to spoken communication it would be more like a spoken presentations than a conversation down a pub...

The thing I find difficult to undestand is why some people can't accept that a review can get 96% VH/E approval by readers without there being massive overrating. The idea of overrating is that someone rates above what they really think the review is worth to them, I think what happens in many cases is that people don't have the same idea of what the standards should be and the majority (maybe rightly) set their standards lower than others.

A review I read recently which did get a diamond included a lot of info about the product, it gave personal opinion, it gave background and it gave an overall appraisal of the product and company that I suspect would be very useful to the vast majority of people that read it. For my own taste it was too long and did not concentrate enough on the functions of the product and had too much background, so I rated accordingly but I think in this regard I was out of step with what the majority are looking for in the review. This doesn't mean that everyone else but me is overrating or that I am underatting just that we are judging by slightly different standards. I would never be so arrongat to say that my rating was the 'correct' rating and that everyone else was over or underating and certainly in the case of this particular review I don't think such accusations can be made...

I wasn't going to add any more to this thread, but I just wanted to say that you made an excellent point there Mauri.

That's not silly at all, Mauri.

I might communicate differently, but the information I give out is pretty much the same as I give out in my reviews. A guy in work asked me at the start of the week about my mobile phone as he's looking to upgrade and I pretty much gave him the same info as in my review of the phone. The bits I missed out, he asked as questions anyway. Obviously I didn't take 1500 words to say it, but the information was the same and I didn't once resort to listing specifications. Ditto for other reviews. Even when other people are describing stuff to me - electronics, albums etc. no-one has ever listed entire specification lists or described every single track on an album.

What I find difficult to understand is why people think it's the norm for 90% of reviews to have 96% VH/E approval by readers and nothing be wrong with the implementation of that system. It should be possible for a small amount of reviews to have extremely high approval ratings and these should be the rewarded ones, but when the average review around the site has > 90% VH/E, then there is something wrong with the system either in its implementatiob or how it's used by the members.

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

That's not silly at all, Mauri.

I might communicate differently, but the information I give out is pretty much the same as I give out in my reviews.

That's not quite what you said...but I take your point.

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Obviously I didn't take 1500 words to say it, but the information was the same

So your written reviews are full of padding!

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Ditto for other reviews. Even when other people are describing stuff to me - electronics, albums etc. no-one has ever listed entire specification lists or described every single track on an album.

As I said before that is just a different approach to reviewing and probably one that most people find more useful than the less structured conversational style you seem to prefer... To each his/her own...

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

What I find difficult to understand is why people think it's the norm for 90% of reviews to have 96% VH/E approval by readers and nothing be wrong with the implementation of that system. It should be possible for a small amount of reviews to have extremely high approval ratings and these should be the rewarded ones, but when the average review around the site has > 90% VH/E, then there is something wrong with the system either in its implementatiob or how it's used by the members.

I don't think your figures are right, having just read 10 reviews from a list at random the average rating was 79% VH/E. Ok so this is not scientific and might be high but all it shows is that for most people those reviews gave them all the info they wanted according to their own criteria.

Maybe the average person's criteria is a lot less stringent than yours (or mine), I don't think there is anything wrong with this and it certainly it doesn't prove overrating but simply that most people are setting their standards lower than others...

Mauri wrote:

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Obviously I didn't take 1500 words to say it, but the information was the same

So your written reviews are full of padding!

Nope. As you've quite ably pointed out, there are different methods of communicating. In having a conversation with a mate, with the phone in my hand, I was able to say as much as my review using fewer words. That doesn't make the review padded. ;)

Mauri wrote:

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Ditto for other reviews. Even when other people are describing stuff to me - electronics, albums etc. no-one has ever listed entire specification lists or described every single track on an album.

As I said before that is just a different approach to reviewing and probably one that most people find more useful than the less structured conversational style you seem to prefer... To each his/her own...

Style's not the issue, Mauri. If people want to write stuff using headings or numbered paragraphs or whatever, they're free to do so as long as it doesn't get in the way of the information. However, outside of Ciao and in the real world, I've never encountered any of my family or friends trying to offer the kind of "required" information that's available in a lot of Ciao reviews. I don't get people's life stories as background info, I don't get full specification lists, packaging descriptions, ingredients lists. These things are an invention of the Ciao community, added to pad a review on a site where length is deemed important.

Mauri wrote:

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

What I find difficult to understand is why people think it's the norm for 90% of reviews to have 96% VH/E approval by readers and nothing be wrong with the implementation of that system. It should be possible for a small amount of reviews to have extremely high approval ratings and these should be the rewarded ones, but when the average review around the site has > 90% VH/E, then there is something wrong with the system either in its implementation or how it's used by the members.

I don't think your figures are right, having just read 10 reviews from a list at random the average rating was 79% VH/E. Ok so this is not scientific and might be high but all it shows is that for most people those reviews gave them all the info they wanted according to their own criteria.
Maybe the average person's criteria is a lot less stringent than yours (or mine), I don't think there is anything wrong with this and it certainly it doesn't prove overrating but simply that most people are setting their standards lower than others...

Your assumption is that all of those rates are 100% honest ones yet there are people on this very site (and I seem to recall a few on Optors too) who have actually come out and said they've either VHed or not rated at all rather than leave the rating they deem appropriate because of a perceived backlash from members or something else. Whether you do one or the other, the review ends up with a higher rating than it should get (not pointing the finger at anyone). There are also members out there that can be nothing more than serial over-raters and they're easy to spot. Over-rating/non-rating is a part of Ciao and takes place every single day on loads of reviews to skew the overall rating upwards. Of that, I am 100% sure. The only bit I'm not sure about is the extent of the over-rating.