A New Wind in Dooyoo...

There's a new wind rushing into Dooyoo and its leaving a bad smell up my nostrils!

Recently I've stumbled across many members where they think copying out the whole blog on the back of a product justifies their experience as a review and then add in little else to substantiate their statements of belief.

Ive also been called picky because I should have looked at the picture of a product (Dooyoo's picture is too small) to realise what it looks like, not look out for a description to read in a review which should be in place amidst all the marketing speak which has been copied. Does the member concerned want to update their review? Surprisingly the answer is no.

Anyone else notice examples of poor quality in recent Dooyoo reviews or do I need new glasses?

Nope such reviews are rife but then that is to be expected with the new rewards system. I have already done a couple of reports today for reviews where the person clearly does not own or used the product and another for posting the same review twice.

I don't think it's a new wind. There have always been reviews that tell us the whats, but never touch the whys and hows etc.

The new churners have just made it a lot more frequent in recent times though.

I agree that it's been around for a long time. I also dislike track by track CD listings - can't really see the talent and opinion in some of those.

Should a review be nominated on the basis that whilst it has loads of good information, poor spelling and poor grammar are more evident?

Vax wrote:

Should a review be nominated on the basis that whilst it has loads of good information, poor spelling and poor grammar are more evident?

Nope. It's the main reason a certain member's reviews (who shall remain nameless) never got Crown nominations when I was a Guide in either SC or Sports. I've tried my utmost to tell them it's a relatively easy problem to fix (spell and grammar check in Word) but they don't appear to be capable of taking the advice on board.

I also think that there are a lot of reviews being cross-posted from Ciao where the predominant style (atm) seems to be factual histories with little or no opinion. They look good - to skimmers they're most definitely VU but if you read then you're not getting any more than you'd get from an Argos catalogue

[gross generalisation before anyone takes offence]

Offence at the Argos catalogue or at cross posting garbage...?

helencbradshaw wrote:

Offence at the Argos catalogue or at cross posting garbage...?

Perhaps both.

Dooyoo are tumbling back to their bad old days, panedering to the same old bullying guides...That bad smell has a name and he needs his wings clipping.

any body here?