WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER WORTHY OF REPORTING ON CIAO

Different people have different criteria when spotting what has been labelled "abuse". What do you think merits reporting, and what doesn't and why ?

Attacks on race or religion are out of order. I once read a review that said if you are (name of religion) then (removed expletive words) go away.

The review then went on to pull the religion and members to pieces. And had nothing to do with the review at all.

That to me was not needed. Not sure if the review is still about but I would hope not.


I also disagree with members who only ever give out negative feedback. This just gives the impression that they are perfect and better than all others. To me this is a form of abuse, as whilst I agree that some reviews need alot of work, there are also alot of good writers out there too. To only seek out 'bad' reviews or simply write something negative about a great review is not on.

Lunah_c wrote:

Attacks on race or religion are out of order. I once read a review that said if you are (name of religion) then (removed expletive words) go away.

The review then went on to pull the religion and members to pieces. And had nothing to do with the review at all.

That to me was not needed. Not sure if the review is still about but I would hope not.

Agreed - that's abuse.

Lunah_c wrote:

I also disagree with members who only ever give out negative feedback. This just gives the impression that they are perfect and better than all others. To me this is a form of abuse, as whilst I agree that some reviews need alot of work, there are also alot of good writers out there too. To only seek out 'bad' reviews or simply write something negative about a great review is not on.

That isn't. You may disagree with folks who do that, but so long as the criticisms are valid (i.e. - not downrating because you don't like the person or his opinion, but rather downrating reviews that are rubbish or missing something or whatever) is not abuse. Even if the reader chooses only to read bad reviews. It may make the reader look like a prat, but it's not abuse.

But what if the rates aren't valid.

I agree we all see things different. But If I see members, new ones, old ones, gold dots, pink dots....whoever they are that consistently pick faults in reviews that to me is a form of abuse. Simply because they are unfairly rating.

Lunah_c wrote:

But what if the rates aren't valid.

I agree we all see things different. But If I see members, new ones, old ones, gold dots, pink dots....whoever they are that consistently pick faults in reviews that to me is a form of abuse. Simply because they are unfairly rating.

(Deja vu all over again) - but who says a negative rating isn't valid? We've had this conversation before - just because you disagree with the rating, or even because the rating differs from the other ratings, it's not necessarily not valid. The other rates may be inflated, or the rater may feel something that he wants to see is missing, or the rater may know that information is inaccurate (even if the other raters were unaware).

As for picking faults - well, often there are faults. Do you think they should be ignored just to be 'nice'? And what does the dot colour have to do with the price of tea?

Lunah_c wrote:

But what if the rates aren't valid.

I agree we all see things different. But If I see members, new ones, old ones, gold dots, pink dots....whoever they are that consistently pick faults in reviews that to me is a form of abuse. Simply because they are unfairly rating.

Maybe if you were a consumer and were looking to spen a lot of money and you saw a remark on a review which had 19 "Wow, great review!" comments and one "This is factualy incorrect as **** and *** are not right!" you would not be saying what you are saying here.

People who look to rate harsher than the average rater may well do so to try and give some kind of equilibrium to the party you know?

Quote :

I also disagree with members who only ever give out negative feedback. This just gives the impression that they are perfect and better than all others. To me this is a form of abuse, as whilst I agree that some reviews need alot of work, there are also alot of good writers out there too. To only seek out 'bad' reviews or simply write something negative about a great review is not on.

I find this an irritation too and done in many instances to make their stats look good. Reading, rating and commenting throughout ciao, not just your cot, not just new members, but a wide range all over the site is much more useful as feedback because if you rate positively as well as negatively, people see that you are not just negative about every review, but are fair in your ratings. Just rating negative to me is as bad as just rating VH.

Thingywhatsit wrote:

Reading, rating and commenting throughout ciao, not just your cot, not just new members, but a wide range all over the site is much more useful as feedback because if you rate positively as well as negatively, people see that you are not just negative about every review, but are fair in your ratings. Just rating negative to me is as bad as just rating VH.

I think there a couple of different issues here. Whilst rating across Ciao may be an ideal, many people do not have time to read every review written on Ciao. Some folks will read widely from new in, others will read from their Trust/alerts, still others will read by category. Again, limiting your reading may be irritating to some, but is not abuse.

If you are revenge rating, or rubber-stamping, that's a different issue. But if I were to choose to only (for example) read food reviews, and I find that most are lacking, I am not committing abuse by doing so. I am not committing 'abuse' if I rate against the grain, so long as I am not revenge rating. If I can justify my rating, I have not only every right to rate lower than the masses, I have a 'duty' to do so.

- just because you disagree with the rating, or even because the rating differs from the other ratings, it's not necessarily not valid. Maybe, but that is not how I see it!

As for picking faults - well, often there are faults. Do you think they should be ignored just to be 'nice'?

No, but what if the rater picks on things that are not right or wrong in a review, but simply down to what the writer felt should be in it.

We all write in a different style and should accept that.


I do accept that we all write and rate differently, but as I said before I just feel that anyone who rates in such a way only does so do incite and not to provide constructive criticism.


The other rates may be inflated, or the rater may feel something that he wants to see is missing, or the rater may know that information is inaccurate (even if the other raters were unaware).

Again maybe, allthough highly unlikely. But if they know different about the product, shouldn't they still rate the review and then perhaps write their own if they feel necessary.

At the end of the day that is my opinion, and since Rachel asked for opinions, I gave it. I don't see why just because I see things different to you and maybe others that i am therfore wrong. Prehaps I am one of those you spoke about that is totally right every time and all others are always wrong!

Thingywhatsit wrote:

I find this an irritation too and done in many instances to make their stats look good. Reading, rating and commenting throughout ciao, not just your cot, not just new members, but a wide range all over the site is much more useful as feedback because if you rate positively as well as negatively, people see that you are not just negative about every review, but are fair in your ratings. Just rating negative to me is as bad as just rating VH.

Just like you look for good in things RAch, I look for bad/wrong/inaccurate things. That to me is not a negative but a god given right for all raters of consumer reviews.

If you feel something is not right, then say so.

I do not want to go into the argument of who is right and who is worng, but I encourage people to be critical of my work and respect them for doing so regardless if I agree or not with what they are saying, (unless it is unsubstantuated tosh such as accusing me of racism etc)

I would rather get a U of a similar person to me then a VU from 95% of people who rate.

Yes it is probably a character flaw Angus, but you know there are good reviews out there as well as negative ones, and I feel that reading a good cross section, rather than running on the site to see crap and rate it down is not helpful to the site at all. Those reviews that are crap generally get crap ratings anyway, but I think what irritates me more is when people see something written about them on a forum, and then come in and rate down. I don't think forum activity should affect the way that people rate reviews and have even seen some reviews that were rated U or VU rated down on a second inspection. Surely if the rater was responsible, then a second inspection should not be necessary. Yes, Angus, I am the eternal optimist, but I do try and read fairly around the site.

Lunah_c wrote:

We all write in a different style and should accept that.

I do.

we all rate with different opinions and should accept that.

Some of the reviews I have read are closer to abuse than my ratings, thats for sure.

Lunah_c wrote:

At the end of the day that is my opinion, and since Rachel asked for opinions, I gave it.

Nobody is getting at you for having an opinion - where I feel you are misguided is not in your desire to see people being nicer to each other (not picking faults), but that you are defining ratings that disagree with what you feel is 'valid' as abuse. It simply isn't.

Let me give you a real example.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a review on Ciao of the Ford Ka. I'd driven the car for a week, as mine had been damaged by a Tesco van (my car was parked in my drive - I was well miffed, but that's another story.). I wrote a review, which was mostly well received - it even got £5.00 in the PF, and a crown on dooyoo. Two members, however, rated it SH with explanations. They did not feel that I could know enough about the car after having driven it for a week. They felt I should own it. Now I disagree with them. I think that I had a very good feel for the car after a week. But I don't deny those two the right to rate as they saw fit. They justified their rating calmly and politely. They rated against the grain, but they didn't commit abuse.

Just because you want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, doesn't mean that everyone should.

Ya see?

Thingywhatsit wrote:

Yes it is probably a character flaw Angus, but you know there are good reviews out there as well as negative ones, and I feel that reading a good cross section, rather than running on the site to see crap and rate it down is not helpful to the site at all. Those reviews that are crap generally get crap ratings anyway, but I think what irritates me more is when people see something written about them on a forum, and then come in and rate down. I don't think forum activity should affect the way that people rate reviews and have even seen some reviews that were rated U or VU rated down on a second inspection. Surely if the rater was responsible, then a second inspection should not be necessary. Yes, Angus, I am the eternal optimist, but I do try and read fairly around the site.

Character flaws?

Not really, just character I would say.

What I can't get my head rouns are people who feel their is a right way to have an opinion when there are many ways.

Abuse to me is something which you can't ignore, such as racisim, violence, etc, not someone rating a review NU especially on Dooyoo where you still get 3p.

I think having a hang up on a rate is soemthing that people need to look closely at abd reconsider the reasons why they use review sites.

I wrote one after hiring a car too and the comments I got were valid. How can you write about how much the running costs are of a vehicle after you only use it for a week. I hated my hire car with a vengeance, but that didn't really give me the right to write a review, since I was not an owner for any length of time and my review was lacking in information you could only have from ownership. I actually agree with this premise now but did not think that the comments were abusive, but that they helped me in my learning experience of the way in which reviews should be written to advise the public.

mattygroves wrote:

I wrote a review, which was mostly well received - it even got £5.00 in the PF, and a crown on dooyoo. Two members, however, rated it SH with explanations. They did not feel that I could know enough about the car after having driven it for a week. They felt I should own it. Now I disagree with them. I think that I had a very good feel for the car after a week. But I don't deny those two the right to rate as they saw fit. They justified their rating calmly and politely. They rated against the grain, but they didn't commit abuse.

Just because you want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, doesn't mean that everyone should.

Ya see?

Just out of curiosity, was I one of them?

Can't say I have read any of your reviews Angus so can't comment, maybe one day I will grace you with my presence.

Thingywhatsit wrote:

How can you write about how much the running costs are of a vehicle after you only use it for a week. I hated my hire car with a vengeance, but that didn't really give me the right to write a review, since I was not an owner for any length of time ...

Actually, it's not a case of having the 'right'. Of course you have the right - and I think you can write a car review after hiring the car for a week - after all, if you read a motoring magazine, the reviews of those cars are often after having been driven for a day or less. But the point is, people who rate a well-written hire car review VH have rated 'validly', but so have people who rated SH.

Unless it's a revenge rate, or a personally abusive comment, negative rates and comments are not abuse.

Lunah_c wrote:

Can't say I have read any of your reviews Angus so can't comment, maybe one day I will grace you with my presence.

You wont find me on Ciao I am afraid, although I have been given permission to re-join I have declined there offer.

Some of my best online friends rate me lower than most and I guess that is why they are my friends, honesty.

When it comes t car reviews you need to really impress me to get a VU and maybe 1 in 10/20 do at best.

DVD reviews are another one, I rarely give a VU to those things, but I like to be impressed, so don't give up.

Angus wrote:

Just out of curiosity, was I one of them?

Nope - it was the person who we spoke about on Saturday, who has recently emailed us both, and his partner in crime. Pinky and Perky, as it were.

mattygroves wrote:

Angus wrote:

Just out of curiosity, was I one of them?

Nope - it was the person who we spoke about on Saturday, who has recently emailed us both, and his partner in crime. Pinky and Perky, as it were.

Then I must have given you a NH then.

I shan't give up Angus, but I will learn to put my film reviews into the VHS section !! I hate extras, and they are so unimportant to me, but have to realise they are not to others.

Angus wrote:

Then I must have given you a NH then.

This was the comment you left me on dooyoo:

Angus going soft wrote:

Being a slighlty knowledgeable person when ti comes to the old KA, (My wife is on her 5th one now) can I just say you have covered most things that people would need to know about it to make a decision to buy her.

Length of time does not consitute a right to know "more" about a car, in fact a lot of professional car reviewers have a car for a day to try out.

Not bad for a girl.

Thingywhatsit wrote:

I shan't give up Angus, but I will learn to put my film reviews into the VHS section !! I hate extras, and they are so unimportant to me, but have to realise they are not to others.

Somepeople are destined never to get a VU from me. (thats a challenge BTW)

Unless it's a revenge rate, or a personally abusive comment, negative rates and comments are not abuse.


I will agree they are not, in Rachels case and your own on the cars I can see the reason behind the rating given. However if I were to go and have a look at that persons statistics and see they only ever gave out SU or SH ratings then I wouldn't think of them too highly.

To me these ones are simply only reading and rating to put others down. Life is bad enough without us doing that.

Of course if there is a point that is missing or wrong then fair enough, but some down ratings have been for adding/not information that is very trivial.

To me as long as the main info is there, if the person doesn't put where they bought it, or decides to add the price I would not down rate simply because I feel it should or shouldn't be added.