It seems typical of the ineptness of testing of software at epinions that a topic can be locked yet epinionators who are not very familiar with message boards can post to it ... and that the solution is to wipe out dozens of member postings disputing the party line.

I don't really see that an eight (or so) part posting quoting who knows whom from the Brisbane staff is the way to communicate.

Following this dubious precedent a ways, I am going to follow up this posting with one addressing what the wizards of Brisbane claimed.

In my apparently illicit comment on the ineptly locked
"Status of things on Epinions" topic, I picked out the phrase that I have taken as the title for this posting to invite anyone who believes it to send me money for which I will issue shares in the Bridge to Nowhere (trust me that I will supply an appropriate number of shares for whatever amount I am sent by anyone.

The quotation, BTW, came from Garrett when he was still an epinions employee in charge of cooling the marks out. (It's OK is you don't understand this allusion.)

I would like to know how products with reviews can be weighted more heavily when the epinions software does not even recognize that there ARE reviews on a product. I do not appreciate the message "No review found" when I am looking for one of my own reviews and am certain that there is at least one. I then go to google and include "epinions" in the search and find it.

What about ordinary and/or new readers coming to epinions for a review of a product? They don't know that "No review" is frequently false. They don't get to my review (or your review). They do not conceive of this as "inadequate search engine" but as epinions not having information on the product about which they are seeking information. This seems to me bad for the invisible reviewers but even worse for a site that needs to be conceived as having information. Unless I completely fail to understand the business of epinions, this is bad for business in the most essential way.

As a former database manager and software analyst (for a corporation, BTW), it seems to me that the analysis of how to weight towards reviews was not just wrong but catastrophically mistaken. The alternative possibility is that the software does the opposite of what was intended, in which case the analysis was unclear rather than mistaken. But then the testing before implementation was incompetent (and THAT is standard operating procedure for changes at epinions).

Yes, there are competing priority, but the acceptance of sloppiness in testing and the Cheney-like culture of secrecy in epinions long predates acquisition by DealTime, shopping.com, and E-Bay.

Sometimes (well, all too often) there is a duplication of category slots. But rather than showing the one WITH REVIEWS, it seems that very, very often one without any appears. I have moved some reviews I'd posted to a slot with photo and product information to one without one or both that the search engine finds. This is absurd. Moreover, it shows that the opposite of weighting to reviews has been engineered in the purportedly "always improving" but in fact worsening epinions searching.

The decline of outside hits that many of us have observed probably relates less to the worsening internal-to-epinions search engine than to GOOGLE seemingly downgrading epinions as a site. That is, unless one includes "epinions" in the search line at google, an epinion is less likely to appear now than, say, last year. This is bad for writers and bad for the basic business.

Whether making travel destinations completely invisible (we were told that they were at the bottom because shopping.com did not have travel reviews, but they are in fact not even at the bottom, as my partner, Jiahong, has complained. Travel destination reviews are not "behind an 8-ball," they are not on the table or even visibly under the table!

I have to contest Andy's inference that because there are some hits, the search engine works to some extent. Well, OK, to "s

This thread was locked but I re-opened it, since I specifically told Stephen that he could start a new thread discussing search issues. I disagree with the way Stephen has characterized Garrett in his post and think it's a cheap shot. I have a lot of respect for Garrett, who did an excellent job of keeping the community informed and in general good humor. However, I don't want to re-neg on my assurance to Stephen that he could start a thread discussing search issues.

Attacking another person in the forums is a quick way to get a thread deleted. Just keep it even and fair, and we can actually exchange ideas.

--Bob (a moderator)

I wonder:

Which would make more epinions content visible to the public:

Adding new reviews with a perpetual 10-4-10 promotion?

-or-

Making existing reviews findable and accessible?

-Andy

before it was really begun -- while I was writing the substance of my disagreement with the scattershot status report.

I copied what I was writing and posted an even longer analysis of the deterioration of searching (both the epinions search engine and the seeming systematic lowering of epinions status in google searches, which is certainly not something anyone working for or writing for epinions wants!) in "General comments about Epinions.

To that posting, I appended descriptions of three other ways in which the visibility of epinions review has deterioriated.

There is great discomfort with any criticisms specifying a named name on epinions. My posting (the one that I was writing about the substance of the claims about improving searches before the thread was pre-emptively removed by someone other than pyreditor) responds to statements made by particular epinions employees who were reporting -- or in my view spinning -- about the state of searching of epinions.

In that a very long thread in which many nonemployees responded was deleted so that the statements of then-employees could stand alone, not linking offical (author of the statements) in my comments to who made them seemed absurd or at least onerous.
I do not think I made any "cheap shots" at Garrett (and glad that he has gone on record as agreeing about this!). His job to a large extent was to "cool the marks out," that is, in this instance, to keep us producing epinions despite our mounting dismay at how many of them have been becoming invisible.

Garrett is quite right that there is something disparaging about calling myself and others who continue to post epinions "marks" -- those who are conned and kept from exploding into violence while or after being conned. I feel like a mark, but as Garrett correctly interprets the analogy, this is self-criticism, not criticism of him.

BTW, disparagement of those who see searches worsening instead of improving "Chicken Littles" (which it was Andy rather than Garrett who did) is to me a real "cheap shot" (recognizing that "cooling the mark out" was part of Andy's job, too).

In my epinion http://www.epinions.com/content_5199667332 I invite (challenge?) epinions staff to provide advisors (or everyone) data on mean (statistical average) number of hits per new review for some month this year in contrast to the same month last year. Maybe my/our perception is mistaken, but instead of labeling us "Chicken Littles" why not provide real evidence?

(Another surprise in the unfamiliar territory of the Message Boards is that I "do not have permission" to edit my own posting to a thread I initiated.)

what an eye opening thread, this "mark" thanks you and is going to read your review....doesn't make me feel good to think of myself as a Mark or Rube...but you know, it really is true...like a lemming, the 10 for 10 keeps me writing even though I have a feeling in my guts that it's all for naught...I have a deep affection for epinions and many of the people who write here but somehow I'm afraid each morning I will wake up and find the site has disappeared.

Besides, some of us have been banished from the member center--whenever we try to open a member center essay we only get a blank screen.

-Andy

I don't care about made-up rules based on dubious customs.

There is a link because after being told that the proper procedure was to start a new thread here, the thread was disabled before I finished writing a posting. (Others can make what I post as epinions invisible to outsiders by giving low ratings, but can't delete the postings. I think this apparent feature of the Message Boards is despicable, not to mention profoundly alienating!)

The link is to a category that does not generate any IC to me and anyone who is interested in the topic is going to be interested in the comments on the expanded posting.

I am a newbie to "message boards" (and will never again try to start a thread even by invitation!) and the experience I've had in the last 24 hours is all too much like that of newbies posting epinions: being slapped around by veterans for violation of customary practices.

I had no idea that the thread to which I first posted was supposed to be locked. I was shocked that something like a hundred member postings were erased from that thread and that a thread that this newbie opened could be suppressed (I don't know by whom) let alone that it WOULD be suppressed on the basis of the announcement of the topic, before I had been able to post the first substantive bit to it.

In this and previous postings, I am criticizing how the site is misrun. Is "meaningful conversation" only Pollyannish comments like "the search engine is constantly improving"? How did deriding many of us as "Chicken Littles" then get by.

None of my postings in this thread are spam, infringe copyright, or "personal attacks."

I have no idea why your original post was deleted.


But I do know that if you don't remove the link, this thread will surely be locked, and you'll lose the opportunity for a meaningful discussion. Why not just take out the link? All you have to do is mention that you wrote an essay. Anyone who wants to find it can do so easily enough from your profile page.

for providing reasons the link is not link-pimping.

Someone new to the site (as I pretty am much new to the Message Boards) is supposed to know about what there has been extensive discussion? This is not a reasonable expectation.

Similarly, if there is a button that says "post your reply," newbies are not going to know that this should not be used and is only visible because of one of the innumerable failures to test functionalities!

Similarly, I think that if there is a slot in epinions, posting a review in it is legitimate. Newbies (newbies to epinions, I mean) don't know that they are not supposed to post their review in more than one slot, and my view about that is (1) duplication is the fault of epinions (database design) not of naive users and (2) that since it is so difficult to find many products, having the same review in each one that can be found is good for the site in providing readers something when they find a product. If IS is not entirely smoke and mirrors, any IS from a posting should be independent from IS from any other posting (whether on the same or other products).

The corporate culture of accepting sloppiness that I would never have accepted as a CORPORATE database manager is one thing, the making up and then enforcing rules is one of the less savory facets of the culture of the community (and one of the ways in which newbies are quickly alienated and driven away). The way "off topic" is latched onto by some advisors (and would be censors) is another about which I have written, but will forebear linking to what I have written!

I don't know if the Mods will lock this or not because of the link, but I definitely feel the way Mona does.

I think this thread has a lot of good things in it. I think there are definitely things one should stand for and things one should just do to be in alignment. Bob asked nicely in my opinion.

Why don't you link it to your profile page in the blurb section?

Whatever the case may be, there are good points in this thread.

Stephen, isn't there an "edit" link next to the quote and reply links in the top right corner of your message board posts? Other than the inability to edit the original title of your thread, does it not allow you to edit the body of your posts?

It works for me, but it's certainly possible that it doesn't work for you. Just as you can apparently see member center essays, but I can't. Welcome to epinions.

As for the links in threads, etc., there are good reasons why the forum moderators have tools (however flawed and poorly tested before being rolled out) they can use to lock and delete and move threads. There have been plenty of spam attacks to put that beyond question.

As to how those tools were used in this instance I haven't paid close enough attention to have and opinion. As for the link you provide in this thread, I'd agree with gamblin_man that it's not inappropriate.

-Andy

I will start a new thread about the unwritten rule forbidding the posting of links on the General Message Board.

Diana

Good idea to get back on topic--the topic being that searching is not getting better.

The latest "improvement" (seemingly today is epinions displaying "No reviews yet" at the top of the page of a review. This is just so encouraging to writers of reviews! (I will forego providing the link to my most recent posting that shows this, especially since, as noted, I am barred from editing my Message Board postings.

I am going to bar myself from looking at Message Board postings, though I'm hoping that someone will explain to me what "Vertical temporary unavailable", why it has started appearing and how long "temporary" is (another thread, though sharing the concern with our work being rendered invisible).

Before tearing myself away, let me point out that having posted more epinions than almost anyone, I would love to be wrong that what is in epinions is becoming less visible. This thread is one of sorrow and frustration rather than glee. I would so like the VH reviews on epinions to be seen by vaster and vaster multitudes!

The reason why Bob, Mark and myself get a small stipend at the end of every month is because we're charged with taking care of issues on the boards. Someone decided we were worthy of the task, which any member is free to dispute with Epinions staff. Because we're paid to take care of business, we don't share the ins and outs of every decision with the rest of the community, but right now I think that the community's trust in anyone who has any power (whether they have the power to do something as great as tweak the database or as minute as lock a thread) is compromised, I will take a stab at giving some background to what happened to the thread you (Stephen) contributed to which was subsequently allowed to float down off of the first page. I do this in an effort to provide you with some context and transparency in the hope that you will see that there was/is no conspiracy to "shut up" members or shut down threads that voice real concerns about what's happening on the site.

I fear I'll exceed my character limit with not much more than that preface, so TBC . . .

I made the decision to pin a thread that clearly identified the major site issues (i.e., search, hit counts, and MPR/MPA lists) and in which staff responded with the official word on status. I made that decision and had support from my co-mods because members continued to come in to the boards asking for the same information in slightly different ways and I felt that these issues would continue to weigh on peoples' minds. I pinned the thread not only to avoid duplicate threads on the same important topic but also to show any members who happened upon the boards that staff had indeed responded in some way. I also saw it as an opportunity to house updates in one spot to avoid confusion or the community having to dig through several threads to get the most recent answer. This thread was left pinned and open for weeks that turned into a few months.

When the boards were massively attacked by troll activity, many members (including mods) did their best to keep threads on topic and I locked the thread because the troll posted in it. I locked it down knowing that site staff could easily unlock and update it if there were any updates to give. Other discussions among members in other threads continued to thrive around the intracacies of the same issues, and those remained open. Still, I thought it was helpful to the general community to have one somewhat decisive thread that clearly identified the major issues and offered any and all official updates as they became available.

Again, TBC . . .

A few members innocently posted a reply to that locked thread. It's a known bug. Any member can post in locked threads with multiple pages of posts. My co-mod realized that keeping that locked (but not really) thread pinned to the top of the boards was not the best solution to providing the community a direct outline of the issues along with the staff's response to those issues, so he created a new one summarizing that conversation.

He also invited the members (including you) who had further discussion to feel free to start a new thread dedicated to it in an attempt to keep some of the more basic information easily accessible to the message board community. Active discussions are still seen by visitors to the boards very near to the pinned threads. The goal was never to quell the disenchantment with the site or its issues, but rather to separate the basic information from the more involved discussions.

I can see why it might seem like we wanted a "nice" thread sitting on the top of the board and why it looked to you like we were trying to get rid of it the moment people came in to challenge the official word, but the fact is that several people had challenged the official word within it already, many weeks ago. The most recent concerns are no less relevant than earlier ones - I'm just making the point that we aren't afraid of good community discussion. On the contrary, we're trying to facilitate it with limited tools at our disposal.

With that goal in mind, links to member reviews are not allowed on this board. Threads with posts that link to reviews, unfortunately, must be deleted in their entirety if those posting links are unwilling to edit their posts to remove links to reviews and writer's corner pieces. I, as a mod, hate to do this - not just because it stifles a voice rather than facilitates further discussion, but also because these threads often contain productive discussion that get people thinking and - perhaps - changing for the better. That is why you'll notice mods, staff and members asking you to remove your link rather than do what's easiest, which is deleting the thread. It might be easier as a mod for me to delete this entire thread rather than compose long posts in it, but it isn't better. I would prefer getting past the link hump and continuing to discuss the meat of your posts which are strong enough and articulate enough not to rely on links to your own work on this site.

So, I hope you'll consider doing everything in your power to explore your post editing functions and remove the links so that the community can focus on what's really important to you - accountability and improvements on the site. I have attempted to provide you with some degree of accountability and transparency here by explaining our actions as moderators. Can't fix the site for you (or for me, for that matter), but I can give you an explanation about how I've exercised limited power on the boards. Your voice is important, and our decisions were not in any way meant to diminish its importance.

I don't know why anyone would question Stephen's long commitment to this site when he simply pointed out that there are serious problems with the search function and claiming that "it is always improving" is simply not true. And the issue of linking to an essay is a side issue that distracts entirely from his main point. No one has explained why his question and those of others was removed. It was a legitimate discusion with a lot of good information. I haven't checked yet but I assume my notes about the dropoff in hits disappeared, too. Like Stephen, I have not been a contributor to the message boards until recently. I've been very surprised by the urge to silence all complaints and don't find that a healthy approach at all. Epinions has been a very useful site over the years but something is truly amiss here and squelching commentary about it is not the way to fix it.

This comment is exactly right:
I find it hard to understand how two pages of this thread can be relegated to discussing whether or not a link to a Writers Corner piece that earns no IS anyway is or isn't allowed when the overall thrust of the original posting and the few on topic posts is that things are just simply not working and is something that is vitally important. It was something important enough to get Stephen to post here when he's never been on the boards - if that's the case, think of all the members and how we are all feeling about the current state of affairs. It's hard not to be worried.

I think anyone who visits these boards knows that there are some things that are broken in the Epi System and they've been broken for quite some time. I know it frustrates me to the point of screaming at my screen.

But let's remember that we're a community who have known one another for quite some time. I'd like to urge everyone to be civil. Hopefully the problems will be fixed. But damage to our relationships here in the community can be damaged beyond repair. Let's not allow this to happen. And trust me, I know I have to keep this in mind no less than anyone else.

Rudi

Stephen:

You hit the nail on the head. The warning about links on the message board is less about a link issue and more about spinning and controlling the message. The message boards have approached a level of group-think and happy-talk that is astounding to someone who joined epinions early-on.

People complain about trolls but the real problem is that nothing of substance can be discussed on the message boards if the discussion does not dovetail with the official word from the site minders, hall monitors, and other assorted wanna-bes that habituate the message boards like it’s their own personal space.

With the mothersite in such a state of flux, it is clear that the bulletin boards bring out the nutjobs, conspiracy theorists, and other assorted idiots that populate the site. That’s a given. Unfortunately, many of these same people dominate any discussion on the message boards. The chicken littles have come home to roost. It's about 15-25 people that make it difficult for the "live and let live'rs" and make the message boards the last place to try to have any kind of long-term nuanced discussion of the site’s failures and successes.

Beyond that, one may sense (rightly or wrongly), that site priorities will not be met in the coming months due to the staffing upheaval. That will lead to more nonsense by the self-described epinions' experts on the message boards. And, the constant 10-4-10 promotion is leading to what, I'm not sure, but there's definitely some cultural changing of the guard going on, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I do think the site is becoming far too literal minded and though the new content providers are grinding out reviews after reviews, it does seem the quality is falling by a large margin. The site is also becoming more boring, static and uninviting, even with some of the style changes being made recently (tabs anyone?).

The search engine and database issue has gone on far too long. That is the site’s bread and butter (community benefits are secondary to that), and there is far too much discussion about nonsense issues than fixing the problem.

In my mind, the message boards have failed to live up to their promise and are more of a detriment to the site than anything else. I would ditch them in place of a sustained posting on the member center on site fixes, priorities, and timeframes. Nothing else from management until the database-search engine issue is fixed. The fact that some people are excited about a proposed newsletter is even more disturbing.

I do think the site is entering into a “make or break” period and may not survive as a going-concern due to the poor management decisions that have been its hallmark since the beginning (much as AggieBrett pointed out in his recent WaterCloset piece).

So, in future, you’re better off writing something like this on the WaterCloset rather than entering the Message Board arena. You can never win, debate, discuss, or apologize enough with these people. And, at least WC pieces can be flushed. Cheers

Flame away people.

Quote: popsrocks
[quote]I feel for you and others who have most eggs in one basket.[/quote]

I actually don't have a lot of reviews in those categories but I did collect some $. Two of my best Outdoors reviews paid $15.60 in 2007. In 2008 they paid less than $3 then everything ground to a halt.

Quote: jps246
[quote]
the potential IS that was lost will never regained.[/quote]

You must be losing a lot of IS Jeff (compared to previous years). Imagine if your employer stopped paying you due to a computer glitch. I know it's not quite the same thing, but is the site benfitting from the reviews and just not paying us anymore? -Dave

I have had considerable private communication that has made me think that the precipitous drop in outside hits earlier this year did not occur, but that counting hits (and reporting them) was severely compromised by the integration that was billed as substituting the Shopping.oom search engine for the Epinions one.

Adding is what computers are best at and have been at for the longest time, so the surmises I have received suggest that I have overestimated the quality of the analysis, implementation, and testing of software.

In that I write more to be read than for the IC, this makes me feel better (that people from outside are reading some of my reviews, even if their visits are not being reported to me). Given that pretty much everything "reported" from Brisbane (including the constantly improving search engine) is dubious, misleading, or outright false, trusting that the number of hits is reported accurately is a leap of faith that seems foolish to me.

I also learned (credit for this is due to Phil--popsrock) how to get around the "You don't have permission" to remove the link to my epinions "General comments about epinions" I made (in a complicated series of events that I don't want to recount)

I invite anyone who was seriously concerned about my horrifying violation of custom (rather than for those seeking to change the subject from the dubious report of improvement from now former-epinions employees) to delete their discussions in this thread (and paste them into the one specifically about including linking). I have deleted my own responses that seem to have failed to communicate the bizarre circumstances of the strangling of this thread before it was out of the delivery room (and its recessitation after I took what I was writing to the mothership...)

Thanks in advance to anyone who removes their postings about links on message boards. My brief and traumatic visit to the member board is still ending at midnight (PDT), which should make many message board mavens happy as does every successful stomping of a newbie who has violated customs (unwritten laws) by SOME advisors.

I certainly do not expect any admission from Brisbane that huge numbers of hits have not been reported (if the surmises of epinionators less naive than I am are correct).

The ADD kicks in. . . Stephen, you are a brilliant writer. I'm getting a little bogged down (it's VERY late in the school year and I have three brain cells left and I've named them Larry, Moe and Curly)

Can you give it to me in one sentence? It can be a long sentence.

Susan

You did, indeed, get a bad break when you first started here. Yours posts were deleted, locked, re-opened, and you broke a non-written rule that you didn't even know existed. Yup, that's a rough start, indeed.

Had you simply removed the link, you could have avoided what turned into a lot of pages of debate about the issue.

That aside, in the end, I do feel there was meaningful discussion. And, lots of people were helpful, not just the ones you mentioned. I, personally, got involved in your "vertical" thread just before it was about to slip into oblivion on page 2. Eventually, we got some real information about the issue from several people who had experience with the issue. And, eventually we got a REAL answer from Almar.

In other words, the boards worked. You asked a question. It might have taken a little while until some of us understood the question, but eventually, it was made clear, we got information, and an answer.

To my way of thinking you should view all of this as an overall positive experience. Rough start, for sure, but it ended well.

Ditto-ing what Mona says.

Btw, could a mod or someone with access please add Almar's answer to that pinned and locked 'Status of things' thread? Thanks! :o)

Cool! Thanks in advance, Bob. :o)

For easy finding, click here to find Almar's answer.

Cheerio,
Smorg :o)

:) As for an actual reply to the comment.

ACK! Just stopped by to check things and blech! The site is trashed worse than it was when it was trashed last time (ummmmmm... They'd almost fixed it at one point but essentially that was perhaps a day or two so the site has kinda existed in a constant state of mediocrity as far as Movies goes for years). From what I can see it doesn't seem to be recognizing reviews on new stuff (at all?).

Top videos: National Geographic Video - Hunt for the Great White Shark

Ummm... Yeah. That is a best seller. From 1999. What the .... is up with that? No reviews.

Married People, Single Sex: The Return

I could see sex videos possibly being up there but this is from 2002.

Sex and the City - The Complete Series

Could be. Seems doubtful but...

Opposite of Sex

Well, it does include sex in the title. Old movie (1998), not on anybody's need to see list.

Love, Sex And Eating The Bones

Well... I've never heard of it, it is from 2004... Anyone need to see this one?

Planet Earth - The Complete Collection

Well, this one is recent anyhow (2007) but are documentaries that popular? Given that Moore's films are touted as top moneymakers it seems unlikely.

Princess Bride

Love the film. It did have a SE lately but... It is from 1987 I believe. The supposed release date is probably from the SE though because it says 2007.

Deep in the Game

Ummmmmmm... Huh? Never heard of it, it doesn't have sex in the title, no big actors... From 2003.

Last of the Dogmen

*shrug* It is rated reasonably. Haven't seen it. Seems like it might be decent. Again from 1999.

Shakira - Live & Off The Record

From 2004. Is everyone looking for this? No clue. Maybe I'm just out of the loop. *eye roll*

This is the *CRAP* that we were encouraged to look forward to after the search engine had some time to work its magic. Feel free to check back to the initial search engine thread and my objections to it in that thread and ummmmm... Well... I'm not going to say it.

Why the .... does Epinions think that these are top rated? They seem to have an oddball, obscurer-than-the-IS-formula way of determining what the top things are as has often been indicated by the crappy reviews desired posted periodically by the CLs every so often (generally all of those products are obscure).

In "New This Week" they've the usual suspects (The Descent has yet to be taken down) and some oddball new crap. GREAT way to highlight things for the ongoing summer season (last year's?).

"Coming Soon" is just as odd (The Descent is coming soon also).

"Box Office Leaders" might actually have been modified slightly three weeks ago (surprising). But films from the same time last year are still on the list (as well as The Descent. It does have Iron Man released last week or so though (May 16th) and that simply isn't true.

Soooooooo... The winner in the stupidest filing system The Descent.

And to think, I was actually thinking about writing a few reviews. This assinine catalog crap simply hasn't done anything good for the site from my perspective.

Ander

Thanks for the post. It' very informative.