| | | |
| jenniferkateab |
Posted: Nov 06 '09, 3:13 pm |
|
|
Reviews written: 192 Member since: Oct 22 '07
|
|
RE: I think one can argue other side
Tom,
Thanks for stopping by, but I thought you were bringing the s'mores for the campfire. Hark -- I hear someone singing Kumbaya in the distance!
Jennifer
*hopes a short comment will be effective in quelling controversy* |
| | | |
| sleeper54 |
Posted: Nov 06 '09, 3:29 pm |
|
|
Reviews written: 496 Member since: Feb 24 '01
|
|
RE: I think one can argue other side
Quote: jenniferkateab Tom,
Thanks for stopping by, but I thought you were bringing the s'mores for the campfire. Hark -- I hear someone singing Kumbaya in the distance!
Jennifer
*hopes a short comment will be effective in quelling controversy*
What..?!? Is it Friday already..?!?
Dang . . .forgot again..!!
...tom...
' who hopes 'page 2' might help also. I do not handle controversy well . . .. ...:minism:... ' |
| | | |
| kjell1979 |
Posted: Nov 06 '09, 3:35 pm |
|
|
Reviews written: 281 Member since: Jul 30 '01
|
|
RE: I think one can argue other side
If you run with the assumption that an otherwise helpful review might look very helpful when viewing it on a smaller screen. I wonder if a long review that's otherwise seen as a VH due to length might be seen as Helpful (or lower!) because of perceived excessive long length when viewed on such a small screen? |
| | | |
| sleeper54 |
Posted: Nov 06 '09, 3:37 pm |
|
|
Reviews written: 496 Member since: Feb 24 '01
|
|
RE: I think one can argue other side
Quote: morilla You got it.
Hallejuah!!!
He has seen the light. The great light. The bright light. The guiding light.
Welcome brother... :o)
Dreading re-stirring the pot but . . ..
I thought I had been assumed (not necessarily by you but by the unnamed 'others') to be one of those who seeks to stifle conversation and dissent from the status quo.
When really all I wanna do is talk about stuff and be silly once in a while (albeit sometimes too much). If I learn something from all the threads here then I consider myself lucky.
I really do not care who is right or who is wrong or who has the best oratory or debating skills. I find most of the posts here, in this thread and on the boards in general, to be 'helpful'.
Heck . . .I even got me some nice Nike shoes a while back..!! Of course, all those unknown charges on my credit card afterward have been a bit noisome figuring out...
As has already been called out: kumbaya.
...tom...
. |
| | | |
| morilla |
Posted: Nov 06 '09, 3:43 pm |
|
|
Reviews written: 203 Member since: Oct 09 '04
|
|
RE: I think one can argue other side
Quote: sleeper54 Dreading re-stirring the pot but . . ..
Don't confuse or conflate rigorous 'debate' or 'intense' exchanges for 'controversy.' As you can see, we are, in essence, saying the same thing.
Quote: Joubert 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!
Quote: morilla Many or most will fall in between. It is also precisely why a one-size-fits-all… doesn't work here. In fact, that is the very strength of the site… We do a disservice to users to continually categorize…
Quote: popsrocks … Intelligent conversation and the sharing of ideas and opinions by anyone here on the site need not be categorized...
Quote: texas-swede I agree with pops we need to be tolerant of the epinions of others.
Quote: morilla Particularly given that we are saying the exact, same thing!!! To wit - There is a place for each style of review Or, in this case, comment.
All we're working out are the particulars... :o)
|
| | | |
| morilla |
Posted: Nov 06 '09, 3:57 pm (Updated: Nov 06 '09, 3:58 pm) |
|
|
Reviews written: 203 Member since: Oct 09 '04
|
|
RE: I think one can argue other side
Quote: kjell1979 If you run with the assumption that an otherwise helpful review might look very helpful when viewing it on a smaller screen. I wonder if a long review that's otherwise seen as a VH due to length might be seen as Helpful (or lower!) because of perceived excessive long length when viewed on such a small screen?
Part of the problem is the assumption itself. It's part of what I mean when I say:
"Which also happens to be the problem with attempting to rate 'everything;' i.e., you are not necessarily the intended audience, leaving you to rate based on abstract criteria rather than on what may be of value to the actual audience."
Rating based on how it appears in a particular medium is neither rating for content nor presentation; i.e., content is obviously ignored and the medium you refer to isn't the primary one around which reviews on this site are "presented" - e.g., an iPod screen.
The other problem with the assumption is one that seems to be present every time we have this discussion. Length does not equate to content. There always seems to be another, underlying assumption, present in most of the statements, that "short" tends to content and "long" always involves 'fluff.' This is one of the 'abstract' criteria I refer to.
IF you are rating solely based on a perception of length, based on such assumption - "I wonder if a long review that's otherwise seen as a VH due to length might be seen as Helpful... - it then becomes an issue of why 'length' is assumed to equate with content.
Otherwise, length simply becomes the 'standard' by which reviews are rated; thus, ignoring the guidelines and the very reason for the site... providing readers with information. Again, how much information, is going to be dependent on how you, as the reviewer, guage your audience. Failing such individuality of reviewer and audience, then Epinions may as well adopt a template for all submissions; with all reviews being sized to fit the Express Review format or smaller. (Much as other so-called 'review' sites do.) |
| | | |
| gamblin_man |
Posted: Nov 06 '09, 6:01 pm (Updated: Nov 06 '09, 6:04 pm) |
|
|
Reviews written: 416 Member since: Apr 08 '01
 in Home & Garden |
|
RE: I think one can argue other side
Quote: morilla Again, how much information, is going to be dependent on how you, as the reviewer, guage your audience.
Although this thread started as thoughts about presentation of a completed review on different presentation media, and that is a good discussion to have, I will first say that in my 22 years when writing clearly for a widely mixed audience was central to success in my job. the luxury of writing to a narrow audience interest is a little rare. It doesn't happen on Epinions - at all. We can make a few assumptions about the universal reader of a review. They are likely female and competent in English at, at least, an eighth grade level. They likely have some idea about the product or service the review addresses, but the level of knowledge will be quite variable. If a quick scan of the review doesn't intrigue them they will go on to another web page. Wonderful flowing prose with a great story line will not seem more valuable to them than a bulleted list of information. If it does seem to meet their particular level of need they will read more thoroughly. A review that contains enough information for the lowest level of prior knowledge will be overly long for one mostly looking for help in deciding to buy or use. Parsing the review into sections that meet different levels of need will give the most value to the most readers, thus indicating a well-written and information filled review will have broader value. Unless the writer is already known to the reader, there must be enough in the review to instill a sense of confidence in the information imparted and in the recommendation made. Again this should be sectioned to make it easy to skip if already known.
That is generally how I attempt to write reviews and the basis for judgement when rating. I do try to remember an email exchange a while back with someone who was writing excellent ER reviews. When I suggested she get the length up so that they would earn some money, she replied that her profession was as a reviewer for national publications and she would not burn extra ink just to meet some arbitrary criteria. The review most likely to get a top rating from me is one that meets sleeper54's lean'n'mean criteria and my criteria for a top review. I will admit I seldom take the effort to get there with my reviews, though.
Larry |
| | | |
| morilla |
Posted: Nov 06 '09, 6:39 pm (Updated: Nov 06 '09, 6:54 pm) |
|
|
Reviews written: 203 Member since: Oct 09 '04
|
|
RE: I think one can argue other side
Quote: gamblin_man Although this thread started as thoughts about presentation of a completed review on different presentation media, and that is a good discussion to have, I will first say that in my 22 years when writing clearly for a widely mixed audience was central to success in my job...
It seems to me we're still discussing exactly that.
Quote: gamblin_man ...the luxury of writing to a narrow audience interest is a little rare. It doesn't happen on Epinions - at all...
But, that is precisely what we do here. Each, individual, product is addressing a 'narrow' market niche. It then depends on the product itself as to how 'broadly' it stretches across the spectrum; e.g., men, by and large, won't be looking for reviews of feminine hygiene products, though there are exceptions. On the other hand, individuals shopping for a bike, ammunition, or a certain type of tool will share a certain commonality. That is why we have a variety of styles and management wants as much content per product as possible. While all the reviews on a product will address, to one degree or another, those commonalities, each style will better suit individuals within that niche.
Quote: gamblin_man We can make a few assumptions about the universal reader of a review.
That's where we get into trouble. If we start assuming and writing to such rather generic stereotypes, we tend to lose the audience we should be addressing; for we are writing, not to those interested in the specific product, but to a 'type' which may or may not actually apply.
Quote: gamblin_man If a quick scan of the review doesn't intrigue them they will go on to another web page.
Again, as you say, part of this depends on the actual level of interest involved and the type or level of information sought. This is why the 'hook' is so important and why Mark was correct on another thread regarding paying attention to your pros/cons/bottom line. As will your "Parsing the review into sections that meet different levels of need..."
Quote: gamblin_man Unless the writer is already known to the reader, there must be enough in the review to instill a sense of confidence in the information imparted and in the recommendation made.
Amen!
Quote: gamblin_man ...she replied that her profession was as a reviewer for national publications...
The problem with these as 'exemplars' is that it is very much dependent on which publications and how they define review.
Quote: gamblin_man The review most likely to get a top rating from me is one that meets sleeper54's lean'n'mean criteria and my criteria for a top review.
Thus, the problem I mentioned earlier regarding attempts to rate everything based on abstract criteria. What one may personally hold of value may not apply to the target audience of the product or review. Just as with the differing presentation media, Epinions was/is not formatted for 'attractiveness' in all forms. As I point out in the classroom, there are as many different learning styles as students. I cannot adapt to each, individual, uniquely, every time I address them them as a generic "class." I can only do so when addressing them as individuals. The same applies to reviews of specific products.
|
| | | |
| gamblin_man |
Posted: Nov 06 '09, 8:55 pm |
|
|
Reviews written: 416 Member since: Apr 08 '01
in Home & Garden |
|
RE: I think one can argue other side
Quote: morilla
That's where we get into trouble. If we start assuming and writing to such rather generic stereotypes, we tend to lose the audience we should be addressing; for we are writing, not to those interested in the specific product, but to a 'type' which may or may not actually apply.
Assuming that each product type attracts a group of readers that most fits the niche of that product in the brick and mortar world does not match what happens on Epinions. For example, most readers of tool reviews are not the group that would be found in the tool aisles of a hardware store, but the group that makes up the majority of Epinions readers - women. If one writes a tool review that assumes the knowledge of a male tool user they are targeting the wrong audience on Epinions. Most who read tool reviews are looking for gifts for the man in the woman's life. Based on data I have seen, two-thirds of the hits on my tool reviews are from females. The only items on Epinions that it could be assumed that any random reader would have good knowledge of is products for women.
Understanding the demographics of a particular site or venue is paramount to most effective communications. Since the bulk of hits on Epinions in general and in almost any specific subcategory are women (unless the demographics have shifted since I was last informed of them) assuming it is any other group leads to less useful reviews.
I still believe that assuming minimal knowledge of the item, grouping the information in a way that those with more knowledge can easily skim to their level, and writing succinctly while leaving some sense of the writer will maximize benefit to the reader, the site, and the author. Rating for those qualities, rather than length or profundity of exposition, will encourage such writing.
Larry |
| | | |
| morilla |
Posted: Nov 06 '09, 10:24 pm |
|
|
Reviews written: 203 Member since: Oct 09 '04
|
|
RE: I think one can argue other side
Quote: gamblin_man Assuming that each product type attracts a group of readers that most fits the niche of that product in the brick and mortar world does not match what happens on Epinions.
Neither is the reverse true; i.e., assuming what we think happens at Epinions based on abstract data represents what is actually happening at the time of purchase or what motivates the 'research.'
Quote: gamblin_man If one writes a tool review that assumes the knowledge of a male tool user they are targeting the wrong audience on Epinions.
In this day and age, why would one assume that? The same holds true for guns, fly rods, bicycles, books, or just about any other product. I think the problem is that too many are assuming that demographic data represents "audience." The point of reviews at Epinions is they are supposed to be based on our experiences actually using the product. Thus, the review should be written from that perspective; i.e., addressing an audience who uses, wishes to use, wonders if they should use, or intends using the product. Thus, the individual product will dictate the 'audience' and, by derivative, the review process.
Quote: gamblin_man Since the bulk of hits on Epinions in general and in almost any specific subcategory are women...
The "in general" is key. But, again, why would one focus their review based on demographics unless the product itself is geared toward a particular 'group;' e.g., feminine hygiene, LGBT magazines, Hannah Montana, Sport Bras, etc. GI Joe, guns, flyfishing, motorcycles, etc. have long abandoned the concept of "boy's only" toys. It's just like marketing a single of the Mickey Mouse Club song. Sung by the original Mouseketeers (Bobby, Annette, Tommy, Darlene, et al.), it is geared toward a specific demographic. As sung by Julie London, it may be the same words, but it is definitely geared toward a different (ahem) demographic.
Quote: gamblin_man I still believe that assuming minimal knowledge of the item, grouping the information in a way that those with more knowledge can easily skim to their level, and writing succinctly while leaving some sense of the writer will maximize benefit to the reader, the site, and the author. Rating for those qualities, rather than length or profundity of exposition, will encourage such writing.
We are in complete agreement here; bearing in mind that such an approach also largely precludes writing to any 'stereotype' or perceived 'demographic;' as well as any 'template' for 'style.' In other words, the focus becomes the product and its actual/potential end users. Isn't that what a "product review" is all about?
In other words, I think we're saying the same thing.
|
| | | |
| gamblin_man |
Posted: Nov 06 '09, 10:49 pm |
|
|
Reviews written: 416 Member since: Apr 08 '01
in Home & Garden |
|
RE: I think one can argue other side
Quote: morilla In other words, I think we're saying the same thing.
Sounds like it to me.
Reviews I read on Epinions are often, though, written with 1.) the assumption that the random reader (assuming any reader is part of a random pool is also fallacious. In queuing theory terms the arrivals are rough, not random.) will have a high level of knowledge of the product or 2.) have great interest in the technical details of the product. This may be a fair assumption for a feminine hygiene product (based on site demographics), but not for everything on the site.
Larry |
| | | |
| Joubert |
Posted: Nov 07 '09, 7:30 am |
|
|
Reviews written: 370 Member since: Jun 18 '00
|
|
Don't worry, Morilla
I won't bother you with any more observations based on professional experience.
I think you've been told more than once that I was hired by online companies in DC and NY as early as 1986 when visitors still dialed into a local modem bank. I do know this area, more than most, and I'm not guessing or offering an opinion. Every week, I see multiple factual errors posted on this board about things ranging from search engines to word patterns and everything in between.
Every so often, my contribution to these boards can be based on proficiency in 2 things:
1) The site itself, having been a category lead since the inception of the category.
2) Online (not Internet, online) revenue creation.
I believe the companies who hire my firms believe our expertise warrants significant investment on their part. Yet when I post here, I get met with rhetoric like "Oh, you don't want to go there." Sure I do. I'll pit my online expertise against that of anyone in the world.
By way of example, take the first link on your profile page (I was looking for your email address, remember?). There are a dozen fundamental errors on the index page that would get most junior marketing assistants written up for incompetence.
I may not be better than others online, but I'm certainly as good. But I won't be bothering posting here any more about such issues. Responses like yours and the constant attacks have made me lose my appetite for communicating on these boards.
Good luck to you in the future. I don't read your work (I've never read one of your reviews, and since your main subject matter is nothing I know or care about, I likely won't) although I did scan the more than 2,300 words on your profile rehashing your take on Epinions' rating guidelines. I hope you enjoy your time in the community, and you'll email me if you ever have any issues dealing with the Online category.
Peace. I invited you to read Nielsen's remarks. I've offered my own experience, which you often reject. I'm sure everyone has better things to do than read you and I joust here. If you want to reply, email me. The address on my profile has remained unchanged for years. |
| | | |
| sleeper54 |
Posted: Nov 07 '09, 4:17 pm |
|
|
Reviews written: 496 Member since: Feb 24 '01
|
|
RE: Don't worry, Morilla
Quote: Joubert --snip--
I'm sure everyone has better things to do than read you and I joust here.
--snip--
...smalllol...
...tom...
' who has learned a thing or two from reading the thread . . .. ' |
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc. 