| | | |
| popsrocks |
Posted: Jul 09 '08, 9:00 pm |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 2202 Member since: Aug 25 '02
 in Gourmet, Restaurants |
|
RE: Action on current reviews.
Quote: jps246 No matter what, Sports and Outdoors was getting screwed.
I just think there's probably more strings attached regarding the IS than we think - since for the last few months, IS for other non /review/ reviews has gone up - so the money that was going to all the reviews before was then only going to the reviews without /review/ in them. Now that some IS is coming back to the /review/ reviews, the IS for other categories and reviews without /review/ have come back down to pre-October levels, or at least that's what I saw looking through my reviews.
Jeff
Is this a new thought? You are just rehashing, right?
pops
|
| | | |
| popsrocks |
Posted: Jul 09 '08, 10:00 pm |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 2202 Member since: Aug 25 '02
in Gourmet, Restaurants |
|
RE: IS showing in Outdoor Sports
Now that things seem fixed and going forward, I truly hope to see some of you guys writing here again. I understand the frustration you went through not gaining any hits or getting IS.
Now, with the $20-4-10VH and picking up IS, things should be much better around these parts.
pops |
| | | |
| jps246 |
Posted: Jul 10 '08, 5:07 am |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 855 Member since: Jan 25 '01
in Outdoor Gear, Sporting Goods |
|
RE: Action on current reviews.
Quote: popsrocks Is this a new thought? You are just rehashing, right?
Just rehashing...Scott had said he thought that the IS was more category specific. I think it is to a point, but considering how the IS in other categories had jumped while S&O's was dead (along with those other dead categories) and now dropped back down, I'd think there's got to be some sort of connection for the IS sitewide, regardless of specific category tweaks.
At least it's flowing again here in Sports & Outdoors and it looks like the hits are around the corner. I'm glad for that.
Jeff
|
| | | |
| jps246 |
Posted: Jul 10 '08, 5:09 am |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 855 Member since: Jan 25 '01
in Outdoor Gear, Sporting Goods |
|
RE: IS showing in Outdoor Sports
Quote: popsrocks Now, with the $20-4-10VH and picking up IS, things should be much better around these parts.
I think I've gotten written out! I've been averaging 20 reviews a month for the last several months - that's a lot more than I'd been doing before that.
I had plans this month to hit another 20, but I've only got 3 reviews up so far. Not sure if I'll make it, but I'll at least get to 10.
Jeff
|
| | | |
| puckmugger |
Posted: Jul 10 '08, 8:46 am |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 488 Member since: Feb 25 '04
in Sporting Goods |
|
RE: IS showing in Outdoor Sports
Quote: popsrocks Now that things seem fixed and going forward, I truly hope to see some of you guys writing here again. I understand the frustration you went through not gaining any hits or getting IS.
pops
Pops,
Things seem fixed? I haven't seen anything to indicate that. I still see no hits indicated for the last two or three months on the majority of my reviews. In fact only a few even have a listing for the last few months. Are you seeing something that I dont on yours?
Scott |
| | | |
| puckmugger |
Posted: Jul 10 '08, 8:49 am |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 488 Member since: Feb 25 '04
in Sporting Goods |
|
RE: IS showing in Outdoor Sports
Quote: jps246 I think I've gotten written out! I've been averaging 20 reviews a month for the last several months - that's a lot more than I'd been doing before that.
I had plans this month to hit another 20, but I've only got 3 reviews up so far. Not sure if I'll make it, but I'll at least get to 10.
Jeff
Jeff,
I've had plans to write a lot of reviews as well. They more or less evaporated when I thought about working for 50 cents an hour. Of course if things were working properly it would be easier to think of that as a bonus.
Scott |
| | | |
| popsrocks |
Posted: Jul 10 '08, 12:25 pm (Updated: Jul 10 '08, 12:29 pm) |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 2202 Member since: Aug 25 '02
in Gourmet, Restaurants |
|
RE: IS showing in Outdoor Sports
Quote: puckmugger Pops,
Things seem fixed? I haven't seen anything to indicate that. I still see no hits indicated for the last two or three months on the majority of my reviews. In fact only a few even have a listing for the last few months. Are you seeing something that I dont on yours?
Scott
Hey Scott, I take it you haven't had time to follow the little details. I understand. Not everyone has time to check out the site everyday.
The IS is in thread on the General Boards note that we should be showing IS for June. Are you getting that?
It also notes that next week we should start seeing hits on our reviews and that should continue going forward.
It's long been established that there will NOT be any hits giver retro. What was missed is missed. Though that stinks, it is what it is and I for one am happy the task of this part of the "fix" has finally been accomplished.
I'll add that a fair share of my Outdoor and Sports reviews picked up IS for the first time and those reviews that were not getting any hits at all did show IS for June.
Again, did you pick up IS on your reviews that were long dead? They should be showing something.
pops
by the way, how are book sales going?
|
| | | |
| morilla |
Posted: Jul 11 '08, 1:50 am |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 205 Member since: Oct 09 '04
|
|
Fixed? Not Quite Yet
Let's see... 10 reviews last month, diversified into 5 different categories. TWO of the ten earned any IS for a total of twenty cents. Five of the ten were in SG/OG and only one got IS. Even two of the ten didn't have the /review/ problem and neither got IS. Thus, it is still a dice roll when writing a review that any IS will be earned; and, if you find it difficult to carve out the time for a block of ten reviews in a month (50 cents/hr., work commitments, family commitments, not making enough at Epinions on an annual basis to declare it a part-time job, etc.), then the 10-4-10 may or may not apply resulting in $0.00 for a review. That's hardly "fixed."
Some of the older reviews in SG/OG did pick up a little IS; but, nothing like they used to. In fact, my total IS was still low compared to past months. (Okay. I admit it was better than last month's. But, last month's was absolutely ludicrous in that it was only a fraction of 'normal.') Yet, I know with certainty that a number of reviews are getting good numbers of hits. I even stumbled on one that had been linked to on a forum at a manufacturer's website the other night - yet the IS I got for that review was only a small percentage of what I was getting. (No. It's not a discontinued product!!!) On top of that, 'tis the season for shoppers in many of the SG/OG products; not to mention the Google placements, etc.
We're not talking about "hits" as an isolated concept, we're talking about IS; which has to, at least in part, be based on hits - hits we're still hoping will be credited properly (which we have no way to measure). Even Yoel's posts qualify with "should" and "hopefully." Fixed? Not yet.
Yes. It looks like they are finally making some effort to at least acknowledge and somewhat 'fix' the issues of hits/IS. Yes, that is a positive. However, it is still far too early to declare "victory," do the dance of joy, and otherwise run around saying "I told you so" (or tout how much others are 'making out' with the fixes as they exist thus far). I think the telling story is going to be next month, since the 'fix' is supposed to be in and that should mean IS is back to something approaching "normal."
Fixed. Not quite yet. |
| | | |
| morilla |
Posted: Jul 11 '08, 2:02 am |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 205 Member since: Oct 09 '04
|
|
RE: Action on current reviews.
Quote: puckmugger Having 85 to 90% of my reviews in sports and outdoors, I can definitely tell you thing have tanked big time there.
Scott
One of the issues I have yet to see addressed here or on the general board is how the newly merged categories are going to be impacted insofar as IS. SG/OG used to be two, separate categories. If Jeff is correct (and I'm inclined to agree with him since I see it pretty much the same way), IS is assigned to a category and then distributed to the individual reviews within that category.
If we accept this (at least for the sake of argument) is the way it works, then it used to be that OG reviews were balanced against OG reviews in terms of that distribution within the category and SG against SG. Now we're one, big, happy category. Which means the distribution within the category is likely to be subject to a new prioritization. (Remember, Garrett has indicated on numerous occasions that IS is going to be distributed differently from now on.) What do I mean?
Nalgene bottles, tents, pack stoves, sleeping bags, and all the other OG reviews will be stratified with/against golf clubs, hockey pucks, baseball bats, etc. In the grand scheme of things, this brings us back to the issue of how IS will now be distributed within these merged categories. I suspect that a number of the reviews that used to see steady IS in the original category, might now end up stratified much farther down the distribution list within the category, resulting in 'tanked' IS for previously IS productive reviews.
But, that's just a guess; although it might 'explain' some of the 'tanked' reviews even with the 'fixes' we currently have. Again, it would be nice to see some sort of specific communication rather than people running around guessing, cheering, complaining, wondering, or grasping at the smallest 'fix' or change as incontrovertible evidence that everything is wonderful; or in the toilet depending on your predilictions. |
| | | |
| popsrocks |
Posted: Jul 11 '08, 7:57 am (Updated: Jul 11 '08, 8:00 am) |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 2202 Member since: Aug 25 '02
in Gourmet, Restaurants |
|
RE: Action on current reviews.
Quote: morilla or grasping at the smallest 'fix' or change as incontrovertible evidence that everything is wonderful; or in the toilet depending on your predilictions.
In referring to this last "fix" I don't believe anyone said "everything is wonderful" OR "in the toilet."
I think we can all agree there has been a major step in the right direction. Yes, there's much more to go but I believe management is working to correct problems and get back in the good graces of the community.
By the way, I don't believe we will ever know for certain how IS works and the questions about it today are much the same as they have been since day 1. Well at least August '02 when I started.
It's been noted way back, I believe by Andy or Garrett, that IS will be distributed differently because of the merging. We will see what that means in dollars and cents for each of us based on the particular products we review.
I do know that the $20-4-10VH does give some writers much more overall income than they ever received on the site. No, not everyone can take that kind of time to write that many but it is an incentive program and it does add many more dollars overall per review. Most of the reviews I have posted over the past six years have not reached the two dollar level. For those reviews the extra $2 would have been a welcome find.
As it continues there are some reviews that I expect to gain IS of just a few cents or nothing and then there are others that explode with income. I still haven't figured it out. Each review I post is like a little treasure chest. After sitting around a while some show nothing inside while others are loaded with coin.
Please someone, give me the formula when you find out.
popshappytoseemanyreviewsthatwerepreviouslyatOnowgettingIS
|
| | | |
| trailhound |
Posted: Jul 11 '08, 11:38 am |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 658 Member since: May 21 '04
|
|
RE: Fixed? Not Quite Yet
Quote: morilla Let's see... 10 reviews last month, diversified into 5 different categories. TWO of the ten earned any IS for a total of twenty cents.
My results were almost identical for June. My theory is that all the 10 for 10 reviews are diluting the IS pool so thin there is little left to go around. Many of the 10 for 10 reviews are not adding much value to the database (IMO) so the writer gets the $2 and that's it. -Dave
|
| | | |
| jps246 |
Posted: Jul 11 '08, 3:27 pm |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 855 Member since: Jan 25 '01
in Outdoor Gear, Sporting Goods |
|
RE: Fixed? Not Quite Yet
bumping over the spam
|
| | | |
| puckmugger |
Posted: Jul 11 '08, 3:29 pm |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 488 Member since: Feb 25 '04
in Sporting Goods |
|
RE: IS showing in Outdoor Sports
Quote: popsrocks Hey Scott, I take it you haven't had time to follow the little details. I understand. Not everyone has time to check out the site everyday.
Again, did you pick up IS on your reviews that were long dead?
pops
by the way, how are book sales going?
Pops,
I did see that IS was in. However, I didn't see any change in my IS from last month's (it's almost identical in fact). I have seen a few reviews with 0/0 hits and some IS, but 90% of my reviews still show no hits for the last 3 months, most still show no stats at all for the last 3 months in fact.
I guess I need to wait another month to see what happens with the IS at this point. But I figured that I'd be seeing hits accumulating once things were fixed. That's what has me mostly concerned.
Books sales are good, but I won't be retiring anytime soon from them. Thanks for asking.
Scott |
| | | |
| puckmugger |
Posted: Jul 11 '08, 3:37 pm |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 488 Member since: Feb 25 '04
in Sporting Goods |
|
RE: Action on current reviews.
Quote: morilla One of the issues I have yet to see addressed here or on the general board is how the newly merged categories are going to be impacted insofar as IS. SG/OG used to be two, separate categories. If Jeff is correct (and I'm inclined to agree with him since I see it pretty much the same way), IS is assigned to a category and then distributed to the individual reviews within that category.
That's pretty much how I see it. Sports and Outdoors IS is distributed on a weighted balance across all Sports and Outdoor reviews. However, I was under the impression that Jeff believed that Sports and Outdoors IS was lumped in with Health and Beauty, Electronics and every other category then distributed sitewide rather than by category.
However, I do believe that outside advertising and sales referrals are generally separate and might apply more directly to a given sub category or even perhaps to a specific review. This would explain the reason the entire IS issue shrouded in secrecy. If IS from outside sales is linked to the specific item reviews, there would be a huge incentive to give everything 5 stars . . . not so great for unbiased reviewing. Of course, that's just my take on it.
Scott |
| | | |
| morilla |
Posted: Jul 11 '08, 4:26 pm |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 205 Member since: Oct 09 '04
|
|
RE: Action on current reviews.
Quote: popsrocks In referring to this last "fix" I don't believe anyone said "everything is wonderful" OR "in the toilet."
I think we can all agree there has been a major step in the right direction. Yes, there's much more to go but I believe management is working to correct problems and get back in the good graces of the community.
Stating it that way is quite a bit different than:
"Now that things seem fixed and going forward, I truly hope to see some of you guys writing here again. I understand the frustration you went through not gaining any hits or getting IS."
This latter indicates that the problems are fixed and the frustrations are now in the past tense; as does asking if the discussion between Scott and Jeff were a 'rehash.' I think what we are trying to indicate is, that for those of us 'in the category' (heavily invested in, however you want to term it) things haven't, yet, been fixed and the frustrations are still there.
As for management's wanting to get back in the good graces of the community... Well, we've been hearing a lot of things over the last 9 + months while the problems only grew/grow worse. We've finally seen a small step that we see little evidence has actually 'fixed' the long term problem. Thus, pending further fixes and the time to see if it fixes things going forward, not to mention the obvious mix-match of priorities between the members and corporate (page appearance, shopping links, et al. before implementing 'fixes' to IS/page view problems), it would seem proper and/or understandable to "not get our hopes up."
Frankly, management has used up a lot of good will with the community. It's going to take time and tangible actions, not short term/temporary/"hope" it works going forward fixes, to get that back. |
| | | |
| morilla |
Posted: Jul 11 '08, 4:43 pm |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 205 Member since: Oct 09 '04
|
|
RE: Action on current reviews.
Quote: popsrocks By the way, I don't believe we will ever know for certain how IS works and the questions about it today are much the same as they have been since day 1. Well at least August '02 when I started.
It's been noted way back, I believe by Andy or Garrett, that IS will be distributed differently because of the merging. We will see what that means in dollars and cents for each of us based on the particular products we review.
I do know that the $20-4-10VH does give some writers much more overall income than they ever received on the site. No, not everyone can take that kind of time to write that many but it is an incentive program and it does add many more dollars overall per review. Most of the reviews I have posted over the past six years have not reached the two dollar level. For those reviews the extra $2 would have been a welcome find.
As it continues there are some reviews that I expect to gain IS of just a few cents or nothing and then there are others that explode with income.
I don't think anyone expects to have a public listing of corporate 'secrets;' though some may continue asking for it. Where the issue lies is in the perception that IS has been (particularly in the last few months) and will be either a dice roll or inequitable. Prior to Black Tuesday, even the most innocuous review at least got a penny or two, literally, for being posted if they were H/VH. Now, far too many are being assigned absolutely nothing. Still others are receiving a disproportionate amount; either because they have what Jeff has termed that "magical" review or because of the system's continued issues.
The 10-4-10 has exacerbated this problem. People who have been a member for two or three months and have dumped a mass of reviews on the site have, literally, been making more than long-term members who judiciously review and have an obvious commitment to the site. We're not talking about their potential to do so, but the fact that they are. Yet, the longer term members and particularly those with 'hats,' know that they cannot avail themselves of mediocre review postings lest the loss of hat or respect hurt them over the long term (ah, that word 'commitment' again). That's on top of many not having the time to commit to that level of contribution (which brings into question how one defines "real people" - Do "real people" have the time to commit 4 - 6 hrs. a day as some members self-admittedly do?)
Therefore, insofar as many members are concerned, not to mention, as Dave suggests, the long term impact to the quality of the site, the 10-4-10 is perceived as a punishment of sorts; or, in the very least, unfair and detrimental to the site. Again, we're back to where the issue lies is in the perception that IS has been and will be either a dice roll or inequitable. If only some are benefiting from the program while others are being 'screwed' by the changes, how does that 'incentivise' or provide that level of 'stability and equitability' that is needed to get back in the good graces of the community?
|
| | | |
| morilla |
Posted: Jul 11 '08, 4:48 pm |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 205 Member since: Oct 09 '04
|
|
RE: Fixed? Not Quite Yet
Quote: trailhound My results were almost identical for June. My theory is that all the 10 for 10 reviews are diluting the IS pool so thin there is little left to go around. Many of the 10 for 10 reviews are not adding much value to the database (IMO) so the writer gets the $2 and that's it. -Dave
See my above post - AND...
I think in the minds of many, the 10-4-10 has replaced IS; despite the fact that we've repeatedly been told that it is not intended to do so. For some, it's just an additional way to boost their income. For far too many, as you suggest, it is the only way they are now seeing anything for their reviews; particularly with such a high percentage of reviews being paid nothing.
The longer the problems go on and the 10-4-10 bandaid stays in place, the greater the problem will be with quality and the fleshing out of the database. Do we really need 492 reviews of a certain online site or 32 reviews of a movie just to make sure 10-blocks are filled? |
| | | |
| morilla |
Posted: Jul 11 '08, 5:33 pm |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 205 Member since: Oct 09 '04
|
|
RE: Action on current reviews.
Quote: puckmugger However, I do believe that outside advertising and sales referrals are generally separate and might apply more directly to a given sub category or even perhaps to a specific review. This would explain the reason the entire IS issue shrouded in secrecy. If IS from outside sales is linked to the specific item reviews, there would be a huge incentive to give everything 5 stars . . . not so great for unbiased reviewing. Of course, that's just my take on it.
Scott
With the increasing use of the term "qualified hits" being used in 'official' responses, I think you've touched on another, potential issue. A number of my reviews have either absolutely NO links or links which have absolutely nothing to do with the product. Presumably, these are products that were not, for whatever reason, in the SdC database; despite being currently on the shelf products. If, as you suggest, the hits to advertisers (qualified hits?) is part of the IS formula, then what do no links/inappropriate links mean to the IS going forward for those reviews?
In my case, if I'm limited to Cabela's flyfishing product catalog and outfits I've never heard of so that the products I review have 'qualified links,' then that pretty much limits me in terms of what I can and cannot effectively review with any expectation of IS. Then there's the issue you state, if I negatively review a product, what incentive do readers have to click those links?
Finally, if the emphasis is on those products in SdC's database with 'deals,' then that places the thrust on "NEW" products. Now, how many "real people" buy new $1,000-$1,600 bicycles every year? How many $600-$700 5 wt. fly rods do I need to buy or borrow so that I gain experience enough with all the new stuff to review it? Does this create a situation where reviewers need to find access to either the companies or company reps to be 'comped' a product to generate a review; just like the magazine writers? How would this impact the defintion of 'real people?'
If emphasis is placed on the advertising links and hits thereunto to create qualified hits that will generate IS for the review, what happens to a reviewer's incentive to provide coverage of a rod, bike, sleeping bag, whatever that may have been on the market a couple years and, thus, is likely to be 'replaced' in the product line vis a vis SdC's "deals available?" While the mystery of IS is quite understandable and proper, this is part of what I'm getting at with the lack of specific communication. We're left to guess at how Epinions has 'redefined' both IS formulae and 'unbiased reviews by real people.' |
| | | |
| morilla |
Posted: Jul 11 '08, 5:52 pm |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 205 Member since: Oct 09 '04
|
|
I'm Not All Negative
Have you guys noticed that hits for July are now showing; at least, according to jump_chump's post, for the 1st through the 9th?
There. Now you have my positive contribution. |
| | | |
| popsrocks |
Posted: Jul 11 '08, 11:25 pm |
Reply |
|
Reviews written: 2202 Member since: Aug 25 '02
in Gourmet, Restaurants |
|
RE: I'm Not All Negative
Quote: morilla Have you guys noticed that hits for July are now showing; at least, according to jump_chump's post, for the 1st through the 9th?
There. Now you have my positive contribution.
Thanks! ; )
I'm not one to get locked up in theory and conjecture and though much of your hypothesis in reference to IS in Sports and Outdoor makes some sense, I am looking more at the positive events that have been happening on the site these past few weeks.
First I'll mention, like I have many times before, I believe this merge simply became to big an animal for the tech guys to handle. I strongly believe that they kept chasing for answers and the animal continued to get further away. That's my simple theory.
In the past couple-a-few months it seemed to me that management started discussing fixes because the tech guys finally got a leash on the animal and even though they still didn't have it reigned in, they saw the possibility ahead.
That's when we started getting more specific answers in reference to the issues. It seemed that the end of June became the time to show the animal was starting to b tamed.
I believe that things have certainly gotten much better in the last few weeks. Much better!
For the longest time we were not showing any IS on too many products. We are still not showing all our hits just yet but that is promised for next week going forward.
The tech guys also got the MPA/MPR in much better order.
Yes, we are still going through growing pains but let me tell ya, to me the IS on products that didn't receive a thing for nearly 3/4 of year and now are is very positive to me.
Having the MPA/MPR back to where it should be is very positive to me.
Starting to show hits on reviews that haven't in 3/4 of a year is very positive to me.
I also look forward to next month to see how the IS vs. Hits pan out. That too will be an indicator as to where we are going.
Will the site be like it was pre Oct '07? NO!
Will there be a change in the distribution of IS, Yes!
Will it be better for some, Yes!
Will others be hurt by the transition? Yes.
Have I thought of writing elsewhere? Yes.
I have looked at other sites, have had a couple of sites try to woo me with dollars, and have had a number of fellow community members from Epinions suggest others places to post my reviews.
Personally I'm going to continue writing reviews here with Epinions.com. I happen to write in many categories and play the game that way. Over the years I have picked up an instinct as to what will work for me personally and what won't. I mix that in with my desire to write in particular categories with passion and also share words in the Writers Corner where I can release tension, share personal stories, and simply hang out with friends.
I have gone through the tough times like some of you and I have lost many dollars on particular products that were once home run items. The world changes every day. I'm not one to keep dwelling on the negatives. I adapt and continue on.
There have been many major and positive changes in the site these last few weeks. I also believe, as we have been told, that more changes are yet to come. I believe words that were spoken have become deed in reference to tackling particular issues, therefore I am optimistic that the site will continue to prosper and grow.
Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
pops
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.