Epinions, past, present, and future?
Aug 27 '01 (Updated Apr 26 '03)
The Bottom Line Epinions is changing -- in part for the better, in part for the worse.
(So, I've used this title before. So sue me...)
(Updated to clean links and remove all traces of the Content Partner program, which no longer exist.)
I've been an epinions member about 1-1/2 years now. (Actually, one day less than 18 months, but perhaps a little over 1-1/2 years.) I won't comment much on the business model, except as the payment structure affects reviewers and readers, because this review does a much better job. On to the comments, after a few notes:
Abusers
Each of the changes to the site seems to have increased the number of abusers, although we do, with Epinions 2, have the ability not to view them (for the most part).
Specific examples of what I call abuse:
Filler reviews
This includes the a a a a a reviews, the asdfghijkl; reviews (may be faster to type) and reviews using the technique of i n s e r t i n g spaces in words to reach 100. Starting around November 2000, Epinions no longer removes these reviews, so they can only be blocked by member action. (See filtering, below.)
Off-topic reviews
I've changed my view on this over the months. By off-topic, I mean a review which, due to lack of relevant content, is Not Helpful to someone browsing the topic. I no longer consider it off-topic if someone looking for the actual topic of the review would select that topic. I won't name names, but people posting Vietnam war stories outside the Travel/Vietnam topics would qualify, no matter how well-written. At least one well-rated automotive reviewer is in this category.
Offensive reviews
I agree with Epinions that they shouldn't remove such reviews unless they rise (fall?) to the level of obscenity. I, however, don't want to see them.
Multiple reviews
At least 5 "reviewers" I've noticed over the past month have posted dozens of identical movie or automobile reviews in the past month. The name of the product doesn't appear in the body (or sometimes the title) of the review, nor is there any indication that the reviews are identical because the products are identical -- something that can often be said of modern movies. I also include in this classification multiple posting the same review in the same topic, even with different titles (name of reviewers available by Email), and posting a review of one product under multiple products of the same type.
Copyright violation and plagiarism
I think Epinions is doing a better job of policing this than they have in the past, especially since it's the only abuse they actually track. However, there is an error in the FAQ, in that it states that only copyright violation is an Epinions User Agreement violation, but it then refers to plagiarism. Copyright violation need not be plagiarism (if the source is referenced), nor need plagiarism be copyright violation (if the source is out of copyright, but is not referenced).
Multiple accounts
I think only Epinions can track multiple accounts, and I don't think they are. Users (members or not) cannot really be sure.
Tickets
Epinions needs to do a better job of explaining to people why they ARE ticketed, as well as handling abuse complaints. Some members have created multiple accounts to explain to their regular readers that they have been ticketed, and their reviews are no longer visible. These accounts and reviews are, of course, promptly deleted by Epinions staff.
A suggestion to Epinions staff. Instead of the generic Bad URL or no such page message, add more specific messages, such as Account deleted, Account blocked by ticket, or Review blocked by ticket.
Topics
Epinions is still very slow at adding new content (other than movies), as far as I can tell. The recent addition of Online Services is a good sign, IMHO, although I'd still like a place to review quasi-competitors of Epinions like AskMe.com (see my review here, which I think longer earns ERoyalties, wasn't great placement even then, although not off-topic).
Reviewer Recognition
First, we had Experts, chosen by the Epinions category managers. Then we had Advisors, chosen by computer. Now we have Top Reviewers and Editors, chosen (as I understand it) primarily by computer. This actually looks like a twisted version of the suggestion I made in the previous review of this title: I suggested that members be allowed to "Trust" separately the reviewer's (1) writing great reviews; (2) rating appropriately; and (3) trusting appropriately. According to the FAQ, Top Reviewers are selected by the quality and quantity (and frequency) of reviews, number of "First reviews" written, and quality of the Web of Trust. Editors are selected on quality and quantity (and frequency) of ratings and comments, and the quality of the Web of Trust. I would rather have made the choice myself, as there is still an Expert/Advisor/Top Reviewer whose ratings I do NOT TRUST, and there's one member whose reviews are excellent and ratings good, but there is an abuser on his trusted list. Still, it's a start.
Payment
I can't say I like the decrease in payment from 3 cents a hit to 1 cent, but I understand it. I've always (well, at least for a long time) thought that reviews in this category should not receive payment and not be visible to non-members. I don't appreciate the (approximately) 2 year life of a review's earning capability, but I can respect that. (Some advice reviews in Taxes could have been written a decade ago, and are still Helpful.)
I think that the decision to pay foreign writers is a good one. The exact mechanism isn't great, but not having studied the various tax treaties, I suspect that Epinions still has a lot of paperwork to file, even after all the member files all the appropriate forms with the IRS.
Filtering
I have all the filters turned off, so I can see comments, even by people I've blocked. I think a visible flag on reviews in review list stating author blocked or author blocked by community would be more appropriate. If not, separating blocking of reviews, comments, and/or ratings by user would be appropriate.
Filter reviews by rating seems a good idea; if I primarily looking for information, I might turn that on.
It should also be pointed out that, if the Big Names (Most Trusted, Editor, etc.) filter out low-rated reviews, then they will not block the author, so the author of multiple inappropriate reviews may not be blocked by the community. I don't have a suggestion for this.
Sorting and Searching
You can search by topic keyword, but (no longer, in Epinions 2.0 since January), by title keyword. This, IMHO, is a mistake.
Similarly, you can search by member name (full member name, or first or last name), but not by partial name. I understand that you don't want people to be able to print out the full member list by searching for "a", "b", etc., but there should be a "happy medium" of allowing a search
for all member names containing "john", for example.
You can sort a member's reviews by date, title, product rating, or review rating, but not by category or topic. (In V1 you could not sort, IIRC, but you could filter by category or topic.)
You can sort the reviews in a topic, by date, title, or review rating; and, in product categories, filter by "recommended" (defined as 4-5 stars, rather than the recommended checkmark) or "not recommended".
Miscellaneous comments
Advice from Epinions on whether it is proper, and if so, how to do the following would be appreciated:
Put Trust Me or Notify (user) of my new Epinions links in the About Me section of the user profile. (I know they're on the left panel.)
Link to a list of (say) all my Finance reviews, other than placing the list on a separate web site.
(Proper only) Link to Epinion-like sites (if any exist).
Allow the list of users I've blocked to be read.
I won't comment on bugs at this time.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
Arthur.Rubin
|
 in Personal Finance |
 in Personal Finance |
 - Top 500 |
|
Member: Arthur Rubin
Location: Brea, CA, USA
Reviews written: 97
Trusted by: 109 members
About Me:
Expert in mathematics, computers, income tax, with a wide variety of interests.
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.