Sure, Post a Review. But the Last Word Won’t Be Yours.(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Sure, Post a Review. But the Last Word Won’t Be Yours.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/your-money/on-a-review-site-car-carriers-get-the-last-word-haggler.html?ref=technology
17 comments
What? Please explain how your "point" is something other than tu qoque[1], i.e., exactly how Judith Miller's bullshit on Iraq and someone who wrote for the Times 80 years ago possibly relate to this consumer piece.
In your focus on "the Times", rather than on the writing expressed in this specific consumer affairs piece, what factors exactly are you imagining that supposedly swayed the writer of this consumer affairs piece and what evidence do you have for it?
"All reviewers are biased." Maybe you could quantify the level of bias for us, for the following:
1) married couple who had a horrible experience with a moving company, and reviewed it online.
2) the horrible moving company in reviewing that feedback from the married couple.
3) web site who took money from the horrible moving company and subsequently minimized the married couple's review of the horrible moving company.
Are you really trying to suggest that there are equivalent "biases" at work here?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
In your focus on "the Times", rather than on the writing expressed in this specific consumer affairs piece, what factors exactly are you imagining that supposedly swayed the writer of this consumer affairs piece and what evidence do you have for it?
"All reviewers are biased." Maybe you could quantify the level of bias for us, for the following:
1) married couple who had a horrible experience with a moving company, and reviewed it online.
2) the horrible moving company in reviewing that feedback from the married couple.
3) web site who took money from the horrible moving company and subsequently minimized the married couple's review of the horrible moving company.
Are you really trying to suggest that there are equivalent "biases" at work here?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Well, it's not just tu quoque. Relatively few people know that the NYT charges you for reprints when your company appears in a story:
Basically, if you're familiar with the news business, there are a host of things that are done that would shock your average news reader. For example, I await the first website that does a proper social networking analysis of each article to determine the relationship of all people in the piece to the reporter. Reporters know enough to (usually) avoid direct financial relationships, but it is amazing how many have a cozy backscratching relationship with their subjects. A friend, a fellow alum, a friend-of-a-friend, a leaker who wants to advance their own career by taking down an internal rival, a go-to quote machine who will say whatever the reporter wants them to say...these are the staples of the news biz.
Unfortunately, it's not exactly about disinterested probity.
http://www.nytreprints.com/services/reprints/
Professional custom article reprints feature high-quality
replications of original editorial coverage featuring your
company, product, service or industry. They may also be a
topical or feature support for your promotion. PARS’
expert graphics team consults with you on design and
customization that best meets your marketing goals as well
as the guidelines set forth by the publishers.
Basically, if you're familiar with the news business, there are a host of things that are done that would shock your average news reader. For example, I await the first website that does a proper social networking analysis of each article to determine the relationship of all people in the piece to the reporter. Reporters know enough to (usually) avoid direct financial relationships, but it is amazing how many have a cozy backscratching relationship with their subjects. A friend, a fellow alum, a friend-of-a-friend, a leaker who wants to advance their own career by taking down an internal rival, a go-to quote machine who will say whatever the reporter wants them to say...these are the staples of the news biz.
Unfortunately, it's not exactly about disinterested probity.
Until the general public is willing to get past "Free" and pay for some things like a review site or an article from a blog, the companies paying the bills will be the ones deciding what kind of service the public gets.
Even if you get micropayments figured out, and people start clicking the litte $$/££ button on your site, how do you motivate someone to leave positive reviews? It's similar to being in IT, or in the tech side of stage production: if you're doing your job correctly, no one notices and they're unlikely to be motivated to comment positively.
The only method that comes to mind that solves this kind of problem is an escrow company. You hire for services via the escrow, pay them for service, they withhold payment until you are satisfied or until you don't reply, and once payment is delivered, you can no longer leave negative feedback. Written contracts managed by the escrow party would also be a must.
Even if you get micropayments figured out, and people start clicking the litte $$/££ button on your site, how do you motivate someone to leave positive reviews? It's similar to being in IT, or in the tech side of stage production: if you're doing your job correctly, no one notices and they're unlikely to be motivated to comment positively.
The only method that comes to mind that solves this kind of problem is an escrow company. You hire for services via the escrow, pay them for service, they withhold payment until you are satisfied or until you don't reply, and once payment is delivered, you can no longer leave negative feedback. Written contracts managed by the escrow party would also be a must.
delinka (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3282503 )'s response is the first one that comes to mind: if you need to monetise your review business, and if people are (rightfully) suspicious about your company accepting money from the companies that it reviews, then why not ask for money from the reviewers?
Of course, the obvious answer is "They won't pay"; so why not ask for money from the consumers of the reviews? OK, it's still pretty idealistic, and people will still go for free, but imagine a whole gamified review platform: to read reviews, you need to spend credits. To earn credits, you can either spend a small amount of money, or leave reviews yourself. This offers an incentive to leave positive reviews—it gives you access to more of others' reviews. Of course, the big problem with positive reviews is that people usually can't even think of their positive experiences; so prompt for a small amount of personal information: "Where do you live? … OK, people in Chicago are looking for reviews of Thai restaurants. Have you been to a Thai restaurant lately?", &c.
Your review will be decorated with an Amazon-style "This review was helpful" thumbs up / thumbs down button; and, the more helpful reviews you leave, the more weight your later reviews will be given. (The main problem that I have with review sites is companies posting spurious reviews of their own products.) Have comments be the last word, or allow threaded discussions (without moderation, or with moderation only for content violations); I'm perfectly happy with allowing businesses to respond—there are definitely unreasonable companies out there—as long as the whole exchange is out in the open.
Sure, the revenue stream from people willing to pay to read reviews is fairly small, but, if you build up a trustworthy review site, then surely people will come to it in preference to the current crop of useless ones out there, and the ad impressions will start to mean something.
Of course, the obvious answer is "They won't pay"; so why not ask for money from the consumers of the reviews? OK, it's still pretty idealistic, and people will still go for free, but imagine a whole gamified review platform: to read reviews, you need to spend credits. To earn credits, you can either spend a small amount of money, or leave reviews yourself. This offers an incentive to leave positive reviews—it gives you access to more of others' reviews. Of course, the big problem with positive reviews is that people usually can't even think of their positive experiences; so prompt for a small amount of personal information: "Where do you live? … OK, people in Chicago are looking for reviews of Thai restaurants. Have you been to a Thai restaurant lately?", &c.
Your review will be decorated with an Amazon-style "This review was helpful" thumbs up / thumbs down button; and, the more helpful reviews you leave, the more weight your later reviews will be given. (The main problem that I have with review sites is companies posting spurious reviews of their own products.) Have comments be the last word, or allow threaded discussions (without moderation, or with moderation only for content violations); I'm perfectly happy with allowing businesses to respond—there are definitely unreasonable companies out there—as long as the whole exchange is out in the open.
Sure, the revenue stream from people willing to pay to read reviews is fairly small, but, if you build up a trustworthy review site, then surely people will come to it in preference to the current crop of useless ones out there, and the ad impressions will start to mean something.
> Your review will be decorated with an Amazon-style "This review was helpful" thumbs up / thumbs down button; and, the more helpful reviews you leave, the more weight your later reviews will be given
This is exactly what I've been thinking for the past 6 months. There's no reason the rating given to a business should be the generic average of reviews provided. A weighted average considering various realistic factors would provide a much more representative rating for a business.
I hate to do this sort of self-marketing, but issues like these are exactly what I'm trying to solve with my startup (skipscotch.com).
Very interesting idea about gaming the review platform. I'm trying to game it a bit, but the idea where reading reviews require credits you earn by writing reviews is a interesting concept. I just wonder how much of an audience you would be limiting from your platform by implementing it. I suppose you could allow anyone to view ratings, but actually reading reviews would require credits.
This is exactly what I've been thinking for the past 6 months. There's no reason the rating given to a business should be the generic average of reviews provided. A weighted average considering various realistic factors would provide a much more representative rating for a business.
I hate to do this sort of self-marketing, but issues like these are exactly what I'm trying to solve with my startup (skipscotch.com).
Very interesting idea about gaming the review platform. I'm trying to game it a bit, but the idea where reading reviews require credits you earn by writing reviews is a interesting concept. I just wonder how much of an audience you would be limiting from your platform by implementing it. I suppose you could allow anyone to view ratings, but actually reading reviews would require credits.
I would totally use that site, but are you thinking micropayments or subscription?
Since review-reading is usually a one-off thing—I've never found myself thinking, “I'm going to need to read lots of reviews this month”—it's hard to imagine much of a market for subscriptions; so I guess micropayments.
If I were looking for a car transporter, I'd ask around at a forum for car enthusiasts, like this one:
http://forums.aaca.org/f196/i-want-my-car-transported-help-2...
If you find a guy who has 1000 non-shill posts at a forum, chances are his recommendation for some service provider isn't a shill either.
If you find a guy who has 1000 non-shill posts at a forum, chances are his recommendation for some service provider isn't a shill either.
I agree. I don't think I would ever enter a generic search term in to Google and trust the first thing that pops up with hundreds of dollars of my money.
Not to say this is the customer's fault. Just saying people place too much trust into the first result.
Not to say this is the customer's fault. Just saying people place too much trust into the first result.
Reviews are a huge part of my business, and the third party recommendation site (GigPark) that we use doesn't allow us to edit, delete, or respond to comments. I kind of like it like that - it forces us to take care of issues and make sure the customer doesn't end unhappy. It is risky, but motivating.
If a system can be gamed to prefer one party over another, it will be.
The problem with the internet is that it provides anonymity, which allows nearly anyone to claim anything, without having to prove it.
You can attempt to chip away at this by creating reputation systems, doing outside validation, or charging an entry fee, but even then those systems are also subject to being gamed.
There are no good solutions to this one, although I'd love to see one that is self enforcing - where it's in the best interest of all parties to behave in a way that is honest.
The problem with the internet is that it provides anonymity, which allows nearly anyone to claim anything, without having to prove it.
You can attempt to chip away at this by creating reputation systems, doing outside validation, or charging an entry fee, but even then those systems are also subject to being gamed.
There are no good solutions to this one, although I'd love to see one that is self enforcing - where it's in the best interest of all parties to behave in a way that is honest.
> You can attempt to chip away at this by creating reputation systems, doing outside validation, or charging an entry fee, but even then those systems are also subject to being gamed.
> There are no good solutions to this one
I think that saying there is no perfect solution (which is undoubtedly true) is quite different from saying that there's no good solution; each barrier in the way of gaming the system makes the reviews slightly more, though never completely, trustworthy. I know that, in the end, the decision is mine, and I have a chance of making the wrong one no matter how many reviews I read; but I would prefer an imperfect review system to a completely busted one.
> There are no good solutions to this one
I think that saying there is no perfect solution (which is undoubtedly true) is quite different from saying that there's no good solution; each barrier in the way of gaming the system makes the reviews slightly more, though never completely, trustworthy. I know that, in the end, the decision is mine, and I have a chance of making the wrong one no matter how many reviews I read; but I would prefer an imperfect review system to a completely busted one.
One year ago the nyt ran an article describing how one company makes a killing by angering people into giving bad reviews on such sites:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28borker.html?pag...
It's rather maddening to think that by actually providing a warning about some shady company they are still helped by such review sites. Consequently I don't write bad reviews, but only recommend either directly or write about very positive interactions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28borker.html?pag...
It's rather maddening to think that by actually providing a warning about some shady company they are still helped by such review sites. Consequently I don't write bad reviews, but only recommend either directly or write about very positive interactions.
The first thing I thought of when I read this article was: "Boy, that customer got off easy!"
Anyone remember this story from a couple years back? http://consumerist.com/2009/02/direct-express-auto-transport...
It deals with the same transportreviews.com site, but different transport company. The Consumerist reports: "We write often about companies' sleazy approaches to online reviews. Some companies bribe users for positive feedback. Others sue over negative reviews. Direct Express Auto Transport, however, is the first company we've seen that responds to bad reviews by sharing users' personal information."
And here is one of the counter-reviews noted: http://www.transportreviews.com/review/00031016.asp
It appears they've since taken out the customer's full name, but their rebuttal in part:
>Our outstanding record speaks for itself. Customer April would not release her car to our 1st driver on Dec 29 in Arizona, which inconvenienced him greatly...Her choice of words in which to express herself should tell you plenty, which fortunately is now captured on the internet with her full name and town. Because we ship thousands of cars monthly, it is inevitable that we encounter individuals such as this.
Anyone remember this story from a couple years back? http://consumerist.com/2009/02/direct-express-auto-transport...
It deals with the same transportreviews.com site, but different transport company. The Consumerist reports: "We write often about companies' sleazy approaches to online reviews. Some companies bribe users for positive feedback. Others sue over negative reviews. Direct Express Auto Transport, however, is the first company we've seen that responds to bad reviews by sharing users' personal information."
And here is one of the counter-reviews noted: http://www.transportreviews.com/review/00031016.asp
It appears they've since taken out the customer's full name, but their rebuttal in part:
>Our outstanding record speaks for itself. Customer April would not release her car to our 1st driver on Dec 29 in Arizona, which inconvenienced him greatly...Her choice of words in which to express herself should tell you plenty, which fortunately is now captured on the internet with her full name and town. Because we ship thousands of cars monthly, it is inevitable that we encounter individuals such as this.
Thoughts of Yelp come to mind. Businesses paying to protect their reputations. Except we extend this even further.
He envisions "a review site that reviews the review sites".
It appears that's what his employer is doing with his column. He's reviewing a review site. And as he says, the goal is getting page views. Mission accomplished.
What does he think he's going to do with financing?
Implement a massive marketing and sales campaign, getting review sites to sign up to protect their reputations?
If he wants to review review sites, nothing is stopping him from starting a blog and doing so.
You can write or get users to write absolute rubbish and still get page views. That seems to be a solid way to attract eyeballs. It continues to work, year after year.
He envisions "a review site that reviews the review sites".
It appears that's what his employer is doing with his column. He's reviewing a review site. And as he says, the goal is getting page views. Mission accomplished.
What does he think he's going to do with financing?
Implement a massive marketing and sales campaign, getting review sites to sign up to protect their reputations?
If he wants to review review sites, nothing is stopping him from starting a blog and doing so.
You can write or get users to write absolute rubbish and still get page views. That seems to be a solid way to attract eyeballs. It continues to work, year after year.
That's a great idea. Let's start with the New York Times. How did the NYT's Judith Miller do during Iraq? How about Jayson Blair for that matter? And let's not forget Walter Duranty.
http://www.nytco.com/company/awards/statement.html
Point: all reviewers are biased. We cannot count on the New York Times to remind us in every story that it's a corporation with its own conflicts of interests. But it is.