HOW MANY REVIEWS A WEEK

How many reviews a week do members think is a reasonable amount of reviews, basing your reply on good quality, well written reviews, rather than churned ones ?

As many as you can possibly contribute as they will all enhance the database. So-called churning should never be an issue. This particular chestnut needs to be approached from entirely the other side. Reading members have an over-reliance on the new in list. It would be better if members read opinions from the category new in lists, not the overall one - and er... chose the categories in which they are interested.

It might be irritating to people who hover over the new in list all the time to see a zillion articles by one user. I dunno, it seems to be, but I can't say as it's ever bothered me. But it's not harmful to Dooyoo. Poor reviews aid the site in terms of search engines. Good reviews aid the site in terms of quality of content.

Churning rocks.

Give me a good reason why there should be a limit? Even irritation factor's not relevant on Dooyoo, where the new in list goes back for ever and ever and ever.

Why does everyone always want the site to do something to harm itself?

Ah, sorry. Thee and me are reading Rachel differently. What are you meaning Rachel? How many should A N Other post or how many do we post ourselves?

If it's ourselves - once in a very blue moon for me!

I wanted to know how many acceptable reviews A POSTER could post without the site considering it churning. I have reviews lined up but am more concerned about what is considered acceptable than what I earn from them but thought that other members may learn something by knowing what the acceptable norm is on dooyoo.

Ah. Wot I said above then.

There shouldn't BE an acceptable norm. Users who think there should be a limit to the number of reviews people are able to post need educating on the aims of the site and the most appropriate ways to approach reading and rating reviews.

You are wrong. It puts people off the site so anyone who writes more than two reviews a week should be deleted.

Who does it put off the site?

Good writers like Rachel and I.

This is why dots are good. Any churner who isn't a red dot or above can be warned that they shouldn't write so many reviews. Any churner below that can be deleted so they don't scare off the good writers.

DanielsMother wrote:

Good writers like Rachel and I.

Well that's a weird thing to say. At least when it comes to me churners wouldn't put me off from writing on the site. Otherwise I would have left Ciao and Dooyoo a long time ago.

As far as I'm concerned people can churn as much as they want, but the larger percentage of members on Dooyoo still seem to frown on if you publish 5 reviews one after the other (even if they are very good).

But if you want member reads then two to three in a week would probably still be an "acceptable" norm.

If they are already on Ciao they will know not to churn and just post two reviews a week. Why would someone who was a good dot on Ciao join Dooyoo and then do a bad thing like churning?

Quote :

But if you want member reads then two to three in a week would probably still be an "acceptable" norm.

Why ? If a writer puts in the effort to produce good quality reviews why should there be an "acceptable" norm, if the writer in question is not just posting but is participating equally in rating other members reviews. The point is that some members have more time than others and surely posting good quality reviews benefits the site.

I thought you were on my side Rachel.

Admin wrote:

Why? If a writer puts in the effort to produce good quality reviews why should there be an "acceptable" norm, if the writer in question is not just posting but is participating equally in rating other members reviews. The point is that some members have more time than others and surely posting good quality reviews benefits the site.

That is "acceptable" in people not coming in saying "might not want to post that many reviews at a time as it can be considered as churning." Like it or not, but many people don't like that the same author puts out a lot of reviews one after the other, even if they are very good quality wise. I attribute it to people thinking that churning = copied, bad or misguided no matter how wrong that way of looking at it can be.

Being active of course helps, but if you don't have time to go around reading all the time your general reads from other members will only suffer and will cause the overall reads to seep through slower over the course of time (after all practically nobody reads the second review down from the first).

Quote :

I thought you were on my side Rachel.

Then you don't know me as well as you think you do. I don't have sides. I try to do the best I can on writing, reading and rating reviews. Not interested in sides.

The reason (in my mind anyway) is that churning can mean that other reviews are likely to get missed or drop off the end of the new in list a lot quicker is others are paping out hunners of reviews at very close intervals.

Therefore it is a selfish (not in a bad way neccessarily) way of tryin to ensure you et the most reads on your reivews.

As Jill says, this isnt an issue on dooyoo as the new in list goes on and on and on (and ariston as she would say ) therefore if people are reading all the new reviews, it won't get missed.

Tis very much a ciao instigated point of view and is becoming a problem simply because of all the ciaoers now on dooyoo.

Okay let's put it another way. If you receive product proposals from Dooyoo all at once, and have already written the reviews, are you not doing the site a disservice not posting them ? As Jill says the list is there and goes on forever, so its not as if other people's reviews disappear like they do on ciao. All I can see is that you would lose a few reads from people that don't read multiple postings, but you can recoup this from reading other reviews surely.

I think if you've got the reviews ready and you put them onto the site at once you probably won't get as many reads as if you spread them over a number of days, but as they don't drop off the list I'm not sure it matters too much.

People will read them if they know your reviews are worth reading, they won't bother if they think you're a serial churner of rubbish.

Being entirely selfish churners annoy me and if one is busy spending their Saturday afternoon producing loads of reviews I will delay posting my review as, just a Drew said it can get lost in the middle of the churners work.

From a Dooyoo perspective it is a non issue because they get lots of reviews and as generally churners are so busy writing they do not read and rate themselves they get few member reads in return so the cost to Dooyoo per review is reduced.

I agree with Sirg that to optimise the number of reads per review I write then three reviews a week is about right. Generally after two days the reads and rates dry up hence I tend to publish in the morning and ideally avoid the weekends when I have better things to do.

I used to think that a restriction on the number of reviews would be a good thing however I was looking at it from my own perspective rather than appreciating the business model that Dooyoo operates on.

I`ts serious churners i have the problem with i.e.

ones who churn out up to 4 or five a day ,,, i got to the point i removed them ,rightly or wrongly from alerts as i was sick of reading them all he time.I dont read anything now they write.

Two or three a week fine but please dont churn all those in one go.

jacpuss wrote:

I`ts serious churners i have the problem with i.e. ones who churn out up to 4 or five a day

I think it's the same with people who upload a pile of reviews all at once, once a week. If they spread them out they would be better received.

But is that not their choice ? And would it not benefit the site to have the reviews ready for the public to read ? Why should there be any norm apart from a norm you decide is right for you, and are happy with ?

Couldn't have put it better myself!!