|
|
Epinions' Survival Depends On "YOU;" Not "Product Facts"Feb 15 '02 (Updated Feb 27 '02) Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in Books
The Bottom Line If you focus on "facts," rather than on your "personal opinion" and the honest, original expression of that opinion, when writing a product review, epinions will fail.
Hello Epinions Community-- Many of you have recently been made aware of, or have otherwise stumbled over, a write-off I recently held, nicknamed the SCADS-Off. Many of you have also read my entry for this W-O. Thank you for taking the time to read, and for those who did, rate and comment the review. The debate in that comment section rages on; it is an excellent one, its issues, important. I invite and urge your input. Some of you may have noted the infrequency of my review submissions. I assure you, as busy as I am, this has absolutely nothing to do with being busy, nor is it because I'm lazy. The reason for the infrequency of my epinions is solely this: for better or for worse, my reviews apparently influence people. I don't believe the only reason for this, is my strong tendency to make a spectacle of myself whenever I open my mouth, though I admit the point is debatable. It may have something to do with my status as a U.S. Congressional candidate, currently and actively involved in a political campaign, but if so, I doubt that much. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd like to believe that some of that influence derives from the fact that I don't believe in speaking if I don't have anything worth saying. Though I have a teaching credential, I feel very uncomfortable teaching anybody anything, because I'm quite certain I'm an expert on nothing. Granted, I write a lot of comments, but that's because they are relatively low profile, I love writing and wordplay, and because I use them to stimulate dialogue, which I consider to be the best method of learning, both about people and myself. THE SCADS WRITE-OFF I devised and hosted the SCADS-OFF generally, and my submission to it specifically; not to inflame your temper, or demean you, or Nirav, or epinions, though some have made ungrounded accusations to that effect. I held the SCADS-OFF to constructively demonstrate a point: THE POINT: Epinions' survival depends on your writing reviews filled with "YOU." The "SCADS of helpful product facts calculated to help the consumer make better buying decisions," is of substantially less importance than your incorporating YOUR "personal opinion" and the honest, original expression of that opinion, into the product reviews you write. RE: MY SCADS W-O SUBMISSION The helpful product info, the SCADS "song and dance" routine, the gimmicky alliteration, the "Twilight Zone" trip through dreams vs. reality," etc., is all just wrapping paper; (in some ways, fly-paper,) "dues-paying" if you will, for the point I'm most interested in conveying. Allow me to quote a fool: "QUESTION: Why the SCADS Jim? Why must you insist on getting on peoples' niravs with your SCAD-addled, "consumerly-helpful" tomfoolery? ANSWER: Because my friend, (epinions) has ALWAYS been about bringing the consumer ONE'S OWN OPINION; a very personal, individual and unique thing, (not just the opinion's CONTENT, but equally importantly, the individual EXPRESSION of that content-- ) of the products one undertakes to review. SHAKESPEARE VERSUS THE PARAKEET "SCADSAT" is merely my personal way of verbalizing and celebrating these unique aspects of the opinion of the individual; the aspects, without which, an opinion, and by logical extrapolation, an EPINION, is a hollow, useless echo. Recently, on this site, a multi-hatted advisor, thus someone who theoretically, if not actually, represents Epinions "SCADS" values, was discovered to have allegedly plagiarized on a number of reviews. I don't mention this to judge or call attention to any particular person or group here at EP, but merely to suggest that plagiarism is probably much more prevalent on the site than we'd care to discover, because the policy that epinions has shifted to, is one that emphasizes INFORMATION, but eschews PERSONAL EXPERIENCE & EXPRESSION. If this IS in fact what epinions desires, then it should begin by changing its name to something less misleading, like: EInfoRegurgitations. Taking information from one source and transferring it to another is NOT "rendering an opinion." What value is there, aside from "clerical," in having a site full of "cut-and-pastes?" I suspect epinions, deep down, understands this, or they would have "manifesting personality in product reviews," not "plagiarism," as an account-deleting offense. Even a parakeet can be taught to recite Shakespeare, but who, aside from its trainer, cares? Shakespeare already communicated it and the parakeet has added nothing; likely has even detracted from the original content, by communicating it without including or having an understanding of the various inflections, nuances, accents, caesuras, tones, etc., implied in the construction of Shakespeare's wording, or the context out of which that wording is spoken. This W-O was never an attempt to "disrupt," "damage," "harm," or generate any negativity whatsoever; not towards epinions, not towards Nirav, not towards the staff, not towards any of its members. Quite the contrary; --it was a very specific exercise, engaged in by individual reviewers representing a broad cross section of, not just epinions, but ANY community. It was undertaken to draw attention to the true value and strength of epinions, both to the consuming public and to itself, which is its ability and willingness to provide, by way of its REAL community of REAL individuals, "SCADS of PERSONAL, HONEST, UNEXPURGATED, THOUGHTFUL AND REAL OPINION calculated to help consumers make better buying decisions." No more; no less. If epinions acknowledges these assets, it will be successful. If it actively supports, embraces, encourages and celebrates them, it will be AMAZINGLY successful. If it "puts up" with them, it will limp along; barely getting by. If it rejects and eschews them, it is certainly doomed. This is not mere conjecture or random speculation on my part; it is "cogito ergo sunt" fact. I don't mean this offensively, but stop and think for a second: Are you honestly able to persuade yourself that people have a greater motivation to visit a product review site that seeks to provide 3rd-hand, dry, statistical, technically-written product information, (written by lay people) when a SUBSTANTIALLY greater amount of that info is provided with SUBSTANTIALLY better organization, in a SUBSTANTIALLY more comprehensive manner by a SUBSTANTIALLY more reliable INFO source, on a 1ST HAND BASIS, directly from/by: BETTER INFO SOURCE #1. --The product's home site; a site where the product manufacturer's experts and professionals disseminate the information and have product support areas and experts to offer assistance, and/or BETTER INFO SOURCE #2. --A professional consumer-product tester and surveyor's site, which specializes in, and has the resources and means for conducting the broad statistical surveys, polls, studies, cross-sections, field tests, etc., that provide the broad, homogenized impersonal "SCADS of useful product information calculated to help the consumer make better buying decisions;" the very kind of which epinions and so many of its members seem to pride themselves in being such prolific and helpful providers? No offense intended, but for a reviewer or staff member to persuade himself that this is so, requires an arrogance that defies all logic and common sense. Perhaps I am the arrogant one here; if I am, please enlighten me as to why, analogically speaking, someone given a choice between hearing "Hamlet" read and explained by Shakespeare and hearing "Hamlet" recited by a parakeet, would ever opt for the parakeet? Logic compels the (successful) business owner to provide a product or service that cannot be gotten by visiting either the direct source (i.e., the product-maker) or the second hand sources (i.e., the professional consumer-product testers and surveyors.) His business's survival depends entirely on his ability to provide a commodity that NEITHER of these two can provide. "SCADS of useful product information calculated to help the consumer make better buying decisions" CLEARLY & UNEQUIVOCALLY FAILS that test. Unfortunately, commodities that pass this test are rare, when they exist at all. It's even harder to provide commodities that pass this test, that are also BENEFICIAL or DESIRABLE, yet the commodity he supplies must be at least one or the other; preferably both. Is there any accessible commodity that passes this test? I believe there is at least one, that the other two previously-noted info sources cannot provide; one which is also desirable AND beneficial: the PERSONAL (i.e., SUBJECTIVE) EXPERIENCE of the individual person. Though the other two previously-noted info sources can provide all the objective, scientific and specialized data, (i.e., epinions' "info-scads,") a consumer could ever want and then some, neither can provide an individual's SUBJECTIVE opinion/experience (for self-explanatory reasons.) Because an individual's subjective opinion/experience's subjectivity does not lend itself readily to plagiarism the way routine fact-transference does, because it has no "built in conflict of interest" as product-makers do concerning the products they desire to sell, because it is human nature to "trust our own," have a closer affinity to "the everyman;" relate to and trust fellow humans, and because the human touch cannot be duplicated or generated so easily by a computer or statistical spreadsheet collection of test, survey and poll data, it is both a highly desirable and exceedingly beneficial commodity to the company that discovers a way to organize it and make it available. To the extent it is more personal, more spontaneous, and more honest, it is more highly prized and desired for its credibility, humanity and trustworthiness; aspects of conveyed product information that people DON'T show up in droves at either the product's corporate manufacturer's site or at the product's commercially-sponsored testing/surveying site to obtain. This is wherein lies epinions' potential value and desirability; as a CONSUMER-information site, not a PRODUCT-information site, if it has the good business sense and desire to prosper which its current policies seem strongly to suggest it lacks. A PERSON BECOMES VALUABLE TO HIMSELF, AND THUS THOSE WITH WHOM HE COMMUNICATES, BY APPRECIATING THE IMPORTANCE OF HIS INDIVIDUALITY "We destroyed the Panhellenic gods; the symbolic deities that walked the Earth side by side with mankind, a couple of millenia ago. By our doing so, we didn't leave the space open for corporate CEOs, politicians, movie stars or millionaires to replace those "scientific phenomena-place holding" immortals; science and our ability to think in an empirical, analytical and rational manner have seen to that. We opened up the space they left open, to fill by ourselves, by taking responsibility for our own lives and destinies. This makes every person the god of that SUBJECTIVE universe he alone perceives and occupies; one which we represent with the word "opinion." For those, who, like me, also believe in a god of the OBJECTIVE universe; one who embodies and symbolizes the idea that principles and laws are the same for everyone at all times, in any part of the universe, God is "the ultimate artist," and we, the subjectively-conveyed SCADS of universal, personally-expressed perspective he communicates. If it works for the Almighty, how bad can it be for epinions? Thank you for your thoughtful read. Your commentary input is appreciated... --29th  |
| Read all comments (55)|Write your own comment |
- Top 1000|
Ads by Google
|
