Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle  Learn more Countdown to Prime Day Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > top reviewers discussion forum

Time for Amazon to separate Blu-ray reviews from standard DVDs


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 32 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 17 Mar 2010 22:56:14 GMT
O E J says:
I'm getting a little irritated by Amazon's policy of mixing different formats of disc (e.g. DVD, Blu-ray, US Imports etc) all in one lump so that if you're looking for a review of one of them, you will often have to scroll down through several non-relevant reviews until you find what you want.

I hope somebody at Amazon reads this, because it's a nuisance and I for one would like it to be rectified. Not only for potential buyers, but also for reviewers who don't want their review muddled up with other products that might look very similar but are often totally incompatible with some hardware.

In fact, I'd like a separate 'thread' for cinema releases because many people looking at reviews of films want to know what's on the DVD (such as extras etc) - but posting a review based on a cinema viewing will be of no use whatsoever.

So here's an appeal to Amazon - please when selling a specific type of DVD or Blu-ray disc, make sure that only reviews relevant to that exact product are posted underneath it, or have them redirected to the correct thread if the reviewer got it wrong (deliberately or otherwise)

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2010 23:35:17 GMT
Mark Kibble says:
Hi Pundit; hope you don't object to my attempt to expand this discussion but I feel the same problem occurs with different issues of CD releases as well, for example band a could release album b on cd in 1990, comprising ten tracks, further editions of exactly the same item could be released 1995, 2000 and 2005. Due to ongoing technology a new remastered/mixed edition featuring an extra five bonus tracks could be released in 2010.

At present amazon appear to class this as "five' different releases, all with their own specific catalogue number while there are in reality only two 'different' products 1990 plus 2010. Surely the date released field could be changed to a drop down box giving a release history which would advise a prospective customer that said product was popular enough to have had multi issues.

The other thing that this would reduce is reviews of older items finding there way onto newer different products, which I find quite annoying. The times I've checked reviews for an item supposedly released in lets say 2009 only to find reviews dated 2001 or whatever, with a note in red stating that it's from an earlier issue/product, what if the remaster/mix has cured a problem that was apparent on the earlier product? plus you would have specific reviews.

apologies if I've impinged.

Posted on 17 Mar 2010 23:55:59 GMT
O E J says:
No problem Mark - it's pretty much the same thing. I just thought I'd raise the topic of DVDs etc because it's the one I'm familiar with, but I guess the same could be said for several other products.

Posted on 18 Mar 2010 01:02:28 GMT
Same situation with books and audiobooks. Quite different beasts ( you can easily have bad audio of a great book) although reviews get mixed up.

Posted on 18 Mar 2010 07:38:38 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 18 Mar 2010 08:01:03 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 18 Mar 2010 08:08:02 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Mar 2010 09:51:20 GMT
JJG says:
I'd like to add to the growing list of products that have this problem. My little niche area of comics suffers from the same, most reprintings of trade paperbacks contain differing 'bonus features', even sometimes differing dialogue or art within the story itself if a comic is old and needs touching up. Amazon rarely, if ever, takes this into account.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2010 09:26:55 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Mar 2010 09:27:12 GMT
Mark Kibble wrote: "The times I've checked reviews for an item supposedly released in lets say 2009 only to find reviews dated 2001 or whatever, with a note in red stating that it's from an earlier issue/product, what if the remaster/mix has cured a problem that was apparent on the earlier product?"

The simple solution to this is to view the reviews in date order. The "This review is from:" tab serves its purpose.

Posted on 18 Mar 2010 09:30:27 GMT
Danny says:
I really am amazed at how little intelligence some of you assume the average Amazon customer has.

Posted on 18 Mar 2010 09:44:04 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2010 10:15:32 GMT
JJG says:
I'm really amazed at the lack of manners of some people here. You actually raise a point I have some sympathy with, so why the need to ridicule people here? All you need to do is make mention of the fact that people can rearrange the order they see reviews in, there isn't any need to rub it in.

Though I think my problem is slightly different to the one of the others here. The different editions I'm talking about are actually the same, they will have the same ISBN number, but still contain some changes. Whereas if it is an entirely new edition, it will have the same problem as highlighted by pundit, but it is easily avoided by the tabs on the top of the reviews. Any other problems about irrelevant reviews coming first is a headache, but it is hardly a migraine.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2010 10:41:36 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Mar 2010 10:41:48 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 18 Mar 2010 10:46:21 GMT
Danny says:
One thing I hate is where an audio book review which says "rubbish, as it didn't include the book" is merged with a review for the book itslef.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2010 10:48:57 GMT
JJG says:
Sorry I hadn't read your comment, I have you on ignore to put it bluntly, I was answering Mark Twain's post, but I see you did make that comment. Well done.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2010 10:52:06 GMT
Very clever - you have me on 'ignore' but you are are still able to read my comments... How does that work?

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2010 11:02:56 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Mar 2010 11:03:24 GMT
JJG says:
I just clicked on 'show post anyway', seeing as it was a direct reply to me it seemed only fair. I'm glad I did, it showed you can be helpful when you want to be.

Posted on 18 Mar 2010 11:48:20 GMT
Danny says:
What bit of my post was ill-mannered? I wasn't saying that reviewers were unintelligent. I was saying that they seem to think Amazon customers are.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2010 12:03:08 GMT
JJG says:
No, I wasn't suggesting that you thought reviewers were unintelligent. But the comment seemed unnecessarily harsh at that point in the discussion, it didn't offer up a solid opinion, it just ridiculed the others here. Like I said before, I actually have sympathy with the thinking behind your comment, it just could have been worded differently.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2010 12:24:22 GMT
Yes Mark Twain, I think you should definitely follow J.J. Graber's sage advice. A fair few users of this forum are clearly suffering from Post New Ranking System Stress Disorder and are little more sensitive than usual. ;-)

Posted on 18 Mar 2010 13:29:46 GMT
Danny says:
"I really am amazed at how little intelligence some of you assume the average Amazon customer has. "

How does that ridicule anybody? I am amazed at how little intelligence some of the people here credit customers with. Thats just a statement. I haven't called anybody any names. I haven't made any personal attacks. I guess, looking back at the thread (as I just have done), I can see my comment might seem a tad ott, but I was basing that on what I had read on the forum here over the past few days, as opposed to my feelings on this thread in isolation.

Hope that clarifies where I was coming from anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2010 13:49:21 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Mar 2010 14:09:19 GMT
JJG says:
Yep it does. Sorry I didn't mean for this to go overboard, and yes if you were basing it on all the threads here, I can see the comment isn't really harsh at all.

The one thing that puzzled me when I first arrived on this forum was how personal it is, as I've said on another thread, I'm not used to the attitude here. It's definitely a much more aggressive and personal forum than say the fiction one, where regular contributors are generally on friendly terms and certainly don't accuse each other of personal attacks on their accounts. Maybe because few of them actually review regularly.

RJS: If you are suggesting, as has been on other threads, that I'm being 'pushy' because my ranking has dropped, it is quite the opposite. I'm one of those people who have benefited from this system change. But at the end of the day I'm not greatly bothered by my ranking, fair enough I check it, but it is not the most important thing in the world, not by a million miles. I'm far happier to concentrate on just writing reviews, but thought maybe this forum would be an interesting place to talk to other reviewers. Clearly it is interesting, but not in the way I anticipated.

Posted on 18 Mar 2010 14:04:23 GMT
O E J says:
JJG, it's a pity you've joined a forum that is populated mostly by easy-going enthusiasts just like yourself but severely undermined by friendless puerile idiots whose self-appointed function is to make derisory, offensive, patronising or belittling remarks about other reviewers. My advice is to put such people on 'ignore' - and stick to it. It will raise your own attitude about reading and contributing, in a positive way.

Meanwhile, it's clear that the topic of this thread is not one that I am alone in feeling irritated by, especially if it is expanded to other products and not just DVDs. As was pointed out to me a few months ago, for example, a DVD and a Blu-ray Disc (BD) are totally different products, or at least different in more ways than I had originally surmised, and it is wrong of Amazon to list all the reviews of all types together. Forget assumed intelligence, that misses the point completely. When I am looking for reviews of BDs, I want to immediately see a list of exclusively BD reviews, and nothing else. Likewise reviews of books and Audio CDs, which still get thrown in together.

Posted on 18 Mar 2010 18:36:02 GMT
Jim J-R says:
RJS - I've watched lots of DVDs/Blurays with directors' commentaries. I love them.

Pundit - I agree on the review front, but the reverse is true in the recommendation system - so many times I'm recommended books / films etc that I already own because they have been reissued in a new cover/format etc.

Posted on 19 Mar 2010 12:51:56 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Mar 2010 12:53:01 GMT
O E J says:
My most recent review of Moon is a Blu-ray but it appears on the list of reviews for the standard-def DVD, which is a different product. I didn't put it there, Amazon did. I have a feeling though that if I delete it, it will delete the Blu-ray review too (i.e. the one that IS in the right place), and re-posting would just return the situation to how it is now. And I'm just waiting for the negative votes together with irritated comments such as "Why do you double post? And you've put it in the wrong place!"

Again, I ask Amazon: Deal with this. It annoys everybody involved, would-be-buyers included, who might buy elsewhere as a result.

Posted on 19 Mar 2010 13:00:08 GMT
Danny says:
How about putting a note to that effect in the review itself. Something like:

"I have placed this review on the Blu Ray edition. Please bear this in mind if Amazon have duplicated it on the DVD edition. This review should apply to the Blu Ray edition only."

That way, at least anybody who negs you and leaves a comment like "Why do you double post, and in the wrong place?" will look very silly.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the top reviewers discussion forum (517 discussions)

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
(Change) 3 30 minutes ago
Reviews are being botted 0 6 hours ago
10,000 Reviewer Listing 1 19 hours ago
Shame on You 77 1 day ago
Wake up time - Have I missed something 12 1 day ago
Need a steer on a couple of reviews, please. 6 1 day ago
Amazon Vine 147 3 days ago
Magical Appearing 1/1 Votes 137 3 days ago
Coupon codes not working 100 4 days ago
Can you block certain people from commenting on your reviews? 71 7 days ago
Would you ask for more? 18 9 days ago
Which Video cam?? 6 9 days ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Participants:  11
Total posts:  32
Initial post:  17 Mar 2010
Latest post:  17 Jul 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions