WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER WORTHY OF REPORTING ON CIAO

Lunah_c wrote:

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.

That's fine - that's how you feel. You have every right to feel that way. My point is...is that people who feel differently - who do rate down for missing information, or have low VH stats...that's not abuse. Just a difference of opinion.

That was my point. Not that you haven't the right to rate as you see fit, or that you haven't the right to dislike people who consistantly rate lower than you do...only that rating lower than you do isn't abuse. Simply differing standards/opinions/ideas.

mattygroves wrote:

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.

See, even I have a nice side.

Quote :

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.

Hi Lunah. I can see where you are coming from and like me, you do not understand the negativity of raters like this but try and think of it like in real life. You will always get negative people and people that thrive on being negative. I think that you will always get people that are too positive as well, and perhaps, in retrospect, both have the right to rate how they see fit, and we just have to live with em, and hope that they learn to leave good feedback in comments to help members. If I see anyone particularly rude on a comment, instead of reporting, I find if I rate it (whether my rate is the same as them or not doesn't matter here) and explain in as nice a way as I can why I rated the way I did, it eases the tension caused a little and if we all did this and took time to explain what the rating thing is all about, then perhaps those comments that are less than helpful would fade into insignificance.

I do agree that the way a person rates overall says alot about their personality.


Someone who only ever gives out E's or VH, probably finds it hard to say bad things in real life, and would rather agree than argue. By giving out only good ratings, they will never entice bad feelings from others.

Someone who only ever gives out low ratings probably likes to feel in charge, as though they have the ability to control the world. By giving out lower ratings they say their way would have been better.

Someone who gives varied ratings, probably sees things as they are, and will know when to stay shtum and when to speak out. Their rating will pick up on bad grammar and factual errors, along with lack of vital info, but praise those who tried to write to cover all the info people could need.


Again, this is only my opinion, I am not a phsycologist, but that is how I see it. Therefore anyone who uses the Ciao rating system, to constantly put others down is abusing the system.

I don't go as far as reporting anyone for how they rate, I just move on to the next review.

I really think anyone with more than 65% VH ratings needs to rethink their rating policy myself.

Sometimes you have to think that people who do not respect your honesty are not perhaps the people they make out to be.

Lunah_c wrote:

I still think that it is a form of abuse though, an abuse of the rating system, but as I said that's just my opinion.

How? Ciao's own guidelines say:

Ciao help pages wrote:

Rate honestly and fairly and stick to your own view
Do not allow yourself to be influenced by the ratings given by other members. Base your rating solely on how useful you, personally, found the review to be. Please also try to remain objective: a review may still be useful even if the author's viewpoint differs from your own.

So if I didn't personally find the review as helpful as you have, I'm rating in an abusive manner?

They also say:

Ciao wrote:

What points should I take into account when rating a review?
When deciding which rating to deliver, it is important to remain objective and not to be influenced by whether or not you agree with the author's opinion. Try to focus on how useful you found the review and whether it helped you to make a product choice. Bear the three following points in mind: 1. How easy was the review to understand? 2. Did it contain all the information necessary? 3. Did it help you to make a product decision?

.

So I may find a review more difficult to understand than you do, or I may feel that a review is more difficult to understand than you do.

Unless I'm 'revenge rating', a negative rate or comment is not a form of abuse. You may disagree with my rating, but you would not have a valid abuse complaint.[/quote]

I do not disagree if you find a review to be unhelpful that you rate as such.

My point was if a member appears to find the majority of the reviews they read to be not up to 'their' standard.

If I was to go to Ciao now and randomly pick ten reviews, I doubt very much that every single one would be worthy of a NH.

Lunah_c wrote:

If I was to go to Ciao now and randomly pick ten reviews, I doubt very much that every single one would be worthy of a NH.

True, but I seriously doubt that every one would be worthy of a VH or E.

I also don't think it's helpful to give too much 'slack' to new members, or to children. The review should be rated - not the member.

As for people who predominately rate low, or who choose poorer ops to comment on or rate - let's look at the converse - many people who are time poor read only alerts or from their trust - for a long time I did so, because I did not have the time to read more widely - and given that lack of time, I chose to spend my time reading the work of folks whom I knew were good writers. Therefore, for a while my rating was skewed towards the higher end - that doesn't mean I was rating abusively by rating largely VH, surely? Why then should the reverse be true?

No, but as you said these were ones from your COT or alerts.

These are ones we have picked because we already know they are what we view as decent writers.

As for the 10 random reviews, I expect it would be a pretty mixed bunch, and I would no doubt be able to use all the ratings given, prehaps excluding OT.



I'd like to use an example......

Someone has been driving for 30 years, they are asked to sit with 100 drivers.

At the end they have found fault with every driver. Some points would have been legitimate and valid, but say he criticised the way they held the steering wheel, or they had the seat too far forward or back for his liking.

Would that mean they were bad drivers? No, they just didn't do things exactly as he would.

But, would he therfore be a good driver, after all he managed to find fault in every one? I doubt it very much.


It's the same with reviews. We all write different, and prehaps add or don't add info. Ciao don't state precisely what to put in. So the finer details are optional.

So I see it that if someone can find fault in the majority of reviews but are only ever the 'optional extras', then this is not really rating fairly.

I find people who rate VU/H all the time funny, I also find people who rate NU/H all the time funny.

It is not absue, it is funny as far as I am concerned, as is revenge rating, it's funny.

I have been known to wind up antagonistic reviews on both sites by rating their reviews low by usint the same criterea they use themselves, but that is not abusive, it is funny.

Funny? How can it be funny.

I doubt if those on the receiving end find it funny.


...............and before anyone says, I have not been there. I have just observed!

Lunah_c wrote:

Funny? How can it be funny.

I doubt if those on the receiving end find it funny.


...............and before anyone says, I have not been there. I have just observed!

What is upsetting about someone rating your review UH/NU?

It is a persons rate, be it stoopid or be it thought out, it is only a rate.

I had someone rate a review of mine N/U out of stupidity and I have just used their example every time they post a review and it grinds them but not me.

See what I mean, it is funny as people want things both ways and life is just not like that.

If someone is constantly looking for crap reviews to rate low then that is funny. Sad and funny. If they rate a lot of reviews and rate lower than the norm, that maybe because they have higher standards than you and may even write better reviews you know?

I fail to see how a rate can be abusive, it makes lillte sense other than personal ego to get upset over these things

Angus wrote:

If someone is constantly looking for crap reviews to rate low then that is funny. Sad and funny. If they rate a lot of reviews and rate lower than the norm, that maybe because they have higher standards than you and may even write better reviews you know?

What if the reviews aren't really that bad, what if the rater isn't an exceptional writer themselves?

What if you have taken hours to write a review and then someone comes along and pulls it to pieces.....

It might not affect you, and I doubt if it would me either, but I have seen the effect it has had on others.

If people are rating unfairly, then maybe they need a kick up the arse !! I tend to look deeper and know that in some circumstances what is helpful to me might not be to another rater.

Lunah_c wrote:

What if the reviews aren't really that bad, what if the rater isn't an exceptional writer themselves?

How good a writer the rater is is irrelevant in this case. It's how good the review being rated that's important. Are you saying that only great writers should rate below VH?

Lunah_c wrote:

What if you have taken hours to write a review and then someone comes along and pulls it to pieces.....

Again, the amount of time taken to write the review is not relevant. It's how useful the review is to the consumer. This is somewhat subjective - which is why you get differences in rates. But some people will spend hours on a review and still write dross, and another can spend half an hour and write a wonderfully helpful review. That's just how it works.

It is a fact of life that some people are smarter than others, some people are better writers than others - some people will find it easier and some people will find it hard.

Being a good writer doesn't necessarily make you a good rater - and vice versa. Remember - some of the best coaches were not players themselves (if you see what I mean).

No, It was a rhetorical answer to Angus

Lunah_c wrote:

What if you have taken hours to write a review and then someone comes along and pulls it to pieces......

If someone can pull it to pieces it was a bad review to start with.

OK, that was a slight exaggeration, but you know what I meant. It can be very disheartening to some when someone comes along and picks up on things that really are petty.

Lunah_c wrote:

OK, that was a slight exaggeration, but you know what I meant. It can be very disheartening to some when someone comes along and picks up on things that really are petty.

Again, though, who is to say what is petty? I rated today a review VH...but also pointed out that in the title of the op they used 'loose' when they meant 'lose'. I downrated an op today (for a food product) that clearly had a lot of time and effort spent...but gave the history of the company, ALL the information from the packaging, the size of the packaging and so forth. I rated that H...and that was probably generous.

So one person's petty is another's important.

I don't understand what you are getting at here.

Is it being rated low you don't like or being rated differently?

Well I gave my opinion, but it seems I'm not allowed one!

Either that or I touched a raw nerve unintentionally.

Lunah_c wrote:

Well I gave my opinion, but it seems I'm not allowed one!

Either that or I touched a raw nerve unintentionally.

Of course you're allowed one - just like I'm allowed to disagree - it's not a personal attack, honest.

And perhaps, herein lies the problem. Perhaps you see negative rates, or critical comments as personal and hurtful. Perhaps you see disagreement as a personal attack on your opinion. It's not.

The reason I've stuck with this discussion like a terrier with a rag is that you are calling negative rates and comments 'abuse' - I just think that could set a dangerous precedent - there is already a big problem with spurious abuse reports on Ciao.

mattygroves wrote:

Lunah_c wrote:

Well I gave my opinion, but it seems I'm not allowed one!

Either that or I touched a raw nerve unintentionally.

Of course you're allowed one - just like I'm allowed to disagree - it's not a personal attack, honest.

And perhaps, herein lies the problem. Perhaps you see negative rates, or critical comments as personal and hurtful. Perhaps you see disagreement as a personal attack on your opinion. It's not.

The reason I've stuck with this discussion like a terrier with a rag is that you are calling negative rates and comments 'abuse' - I just think that could set a dangerous precedent - there is already a big problem with spurious abuse reports on Ciao.

Personally I welcome negative rates and critical comments as I would rather have honesty. It also helps me not to repeat things that I myself didnt notice about my reviews............

I have not said negative comments were abuse...

I said only some members abuse the rating system.


I do not feel it a personal attack, I did say that it had not happened to me.


However I do say that I was simply answering Rachels original question, and gave my thoughts.

I don't feel Rachel intended for our views to be scrutinised as to whether they are right or wrong.