I recently started reading and rating Epinions reviews using my iTouch. I really like the convenience of not being tied to my computer.

Has anyone else noticed that they would sometimes rate the same review higher or lower when rating on different devices? For example, a shorter review doesn't look quite as short on a small screen, so I seem more inclined to rate higher on reviews that give me all the information I need for a product.

Also, I don't notice formatting inconsistencies as much (like broken lines, etc.) on the iTouch.

Does that make sense? Basically, I had developed a visual method to guide my rating on a PC screen, but the method doesn't work as well on the iTouch.

Just wondering if I'm the only one who has noticed this. If so, I'll go back into the corner...

Jennifer

I don't rate on perceived length. I rate based on actual content and the ability for the reviewer to provide information I would need to make an informed buying decision. Regardless on how big the screen is, a review will either provide enough information and opinion on a product or it won't.

Love my I-Touch, but find that it really isn't conducive (at least for me) to a good Epi experience. In other words, I don't bother rating.

My knee jerk reaction? No, it wouldn't make an impact (because I *believe* I'm not influenced by length), BUT, I'm trying to figure out why I can watch a 2 hour movie on the I-Touch, but can't bother rating. Just maybe I am accustomed to a visual method which I-Touch alters.

This is an interesting question, Jennifer: Does your perception of something change depending on the medium you use to display the item? I love to read, but lately have been doing more recorded books. Do I like a book more/less if I read it? Or if I listen to it? I don't really know.

I think your observation is valid. To at least some of us, reviews will be subjectively different depending on the way they are displayed. And rating is a subjective process. Epinions might be wise to consider how its content will be displayed on different devices, and how that may affect ratings... and therefore review ordering and IS.

--Bob

I do a lot of reading/rating on my iPhone. Sure, it is more difficult to read on this thing, but it doesn't affect how I rate things because I am one of the schmucks that reads the entirety of every review I rate. Sometimes shorter ones have lots of good info while longer ones are loaded with filler and have no personal experience included. Appearances and votes based on perceived length can be deceiving.

I always remind myself that the group posting here is not the typical Epinions user. It's hard to keep in mind sometimes, but so very true!

And I think that more of us then we care to admit (I'll admit it) start reading with the expectation of where the review will be rated. School teachers who grade papers and tests as an essay probably have a keen insight into this. I don't.

Funny story: I was on Facebook the other day and saw a note from a former co-worker asking her social network if anyone knew a local electrician. She got two replies, including one that simply said, "[Person], we use [Company]. They service your area."

Isn't that really the heart of **making a recommendation to buy or not buy a good or service**? Because of their relationship, this person said, "Sure, let me call them and see what's up. Thanks, friend."

No posting of hours, descriptions of why someone needed an electrician, types of truck, time in business, the color of the worker's uniform, how the job was handled. Just two friends talking where one asks a question and the other answers. Based on their rapport, the transaction is made.

If I ask someone I know here (say, Rex or Millinocket or GG), do you guys have a favorite online backup service, one of them will have an opinion. Because of my relationship with them and the respect I have, all they need to do is say a name, and I'm headed to that site. [BTW, does anyone have such a recommendation?]

The point is that we seem to have a communal writing style where we first establish our credibility for writing such a review and then the background that led us to choosing the product or service. That's a lot of words for answering the question:

"I want to start using a paid online backup service that runs in the background. Anyone know a good one?"

which is the online equivalent of walking into the office today and saying, "My car needs a need battery and some tires. Anyone know a good mechanic?"

It's all about answering needs, isn't it? It's not about how well someone writes or the depth of their review. The person reading your review (the information seeker) is just gathering information. Whether we have 3 kids, a Japanese automobile or live in a warm part of the country is pretty much irrelevant in many cases.

And both points of view are certainly valid as are the dozens of others.

Hubris? Please.

I was simply applying my knowledge of media as you were applying your knowledge of grading assignments as a teacher.

The data I have reviewed suggests that typical web users want less, not more, information when forming decisions. Please remember that those numbers are in the hundreds of millions so any small cohort can still be several million individuals.

But data from CNN, Nielsen and Google all suggest that less is more is the appropriate time frame.

According to Dr. Jakob Nielsen, widely regarding as a leading expert on web site usability since the web began, there is real data. This quote is from his site this week:

"The average page visit lasts about 30 seconds, but the more experienced the users are, the less time they allocate to each Web page. People are impatient on the Internet. Instantly gratify them, or they're out."

Argue the point if you believe it so, but I'm sticking with the experts on this one.

Hubris? C'mon. You can do better in a civilized conversation.

My two cents in this discussion is that both long and short reviews can be valuable, depending on how the long review is organized.

A long review that starts with an opinion summary (an abstract) followed by details listed under head lines is useful to both those who want read for 10 seconds and those who want to read for several minutes. The reader can read the summary or the particular part of the review he is interested in. If there is no summary and no clearly indicated sections but just a long stream of text, then he can't, of course. I am not saying that I am writing most of my long reviews like that, but maybe I/we should.

About the 30-second thingy. I probably stay around on average for 30 seconds on web sites as well. However, most of the time I stay 5 seconds because I quickly realize it was not what I wanted to read and then when I find what I am interested in I stay for several minutes. It is not primarily an attention span thing.

I agree with pops we need to be tolerant of the epinions of others.

Thomas