Customer Discussions > top reviewers discussion forum

Do I have a fan?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 43 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 17 Oct 2013 22:01:39 BDT
Bacchus says:
I usually have no idea who votes for against my reviews but something strange happened the other day. Normally votes come in every other day but one day I got 4 positive votes in one go and all for the last 4 items I had reviewed.

Normally I would see a quick rise up the rankings but this time, my position went down 2 places as if the votes had never been cast. I assume that the votes came from the same person and Amazon decided not to count them.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Posted on 18 Oct 2013 17:11:20 BDT
Martin B says:
I'm not sure if the votes get discounted as they eminate from one individual. Strange indeed if you have a fan as your profile picture could not be said to be provocative. Best check under the bed before you go to sleep though.

Posted on 24 Oct 2013 09:05:41 BDT
Emily Quills says:
I've noticed a reviewer in the top 500 that when I gave a no vote on one of their reviews (the review was factually incorrect, not a matter of opinion), the vote always disappeared the next day (I tried three times). All of my other votes count. Perhaps Amazon use some software that favours some reviewers over others? I only voted on one of that person's reviews, so can't see a problem there. Anyway, customers should be able to vote positively several times for a reviewer; they may review a lot of things that the customer is interested in or they may share an interest in a certain genre. The system doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2013 10:07:51 BDT
Crookedmouth says:
Did you try to explain in the comments why you felt the review was factually incorrect?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2013 11:42:29 BDT
I think that's right; it would be far better to point out the factual innacuracy, rather than just voting. It is not a "no" vote. The question is whether or not the review is "helpful". It would be far more helpful to all potential readers, to correct the point with a comment that explains exactly what is wrong and why.

Speaking as somebody who reads a lot of reviews to help me make purchase decisions, I would far rather that a comment explained why a review was wrong in some respect. Whereas if it has unhelpful votes, that tells me nothing, really? It could be that the review is innacurate or it could just be that people didn't like the reviewer's style, had a different personal preference, etc.

Posted on 24 Oct 2013 11:55:13 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 5 Mar 2014 22:49:10 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2013 12:04:32 BDT
Crookedmouth says:
I can quite accept that a review reader would probably not be bothered to leave a comment - a simple "yes/no" button press being much easier.

However, if you're sufficiently engaged to write about the subjkect here on TRF, as "Emily Quills" seems to be, then why not have a moan at the reviewer as well.

I had what must be my first constructive negative comment plus negative vote last night. I can't say I liked it or agreed with it, (and I had a moan right back atthe commenter) but it's much better than an anonymous "-1".

Posted on 24 Oct 2013 20:49:11 BDT
urban raider says:
The problem is that some people think they are correct but it is actually political/religious bias.

I recently saw a review with comments about the reviewer's review being "worthless" because they had mistyped one word - "That kind of slip-up makes your whole review worthless, because it shows that you really know nothing about the matter discussed here."

Posted on 24 Oct 2013 23:04:41 BDT
Emily Quills says:
I most definitely did leave a comment, "Crookedmouth", as I was engaged in the topic when I voted"'no" (just as the button says). Anyway, I was sufficiently curious to check that customer's reviews in general. I've worked out what the reviewer is doing, which is deleting his reviews and then putting them back up, hence them reappearing without the vote(s) given by customers. I thought Amazon had stopped that practice, by ensuring that the votes on the original review remained in place when the review was resurrected. I only voted on the one review that was factually incorrect and they have now deleted that review, but they have put back up a previously deleted review for a dvd and this review has been rinsed of its votes (I didn't vote on the dvd review, but it was easy to keep tabs on, as the product only had 4 reviews in total). I'm back to work tomorrow, so nice chatting and take care.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Oct 2013 07:11:25 BDT
Crookedmouth says:
That's OK then Emily. As I said, a "No" vote accompanied by a comment is immeasurably more valuable to the reviewer AND the buyers than the vote alone.

No, Amazon haven't stopped the vote washing thing.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Oct 2013 08:32:04 BDT
This sounds like "cyber stalking" and is quite creepy. There are literally millions of reviewers on Amazon; to focus exclusively on one person, seems bizarre. No doubt the same thing is happening many times over.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Oct 2013 08:36:10 BDT
"Amazon haven't stopped the vote washing thing. "

In fact they actively encourage it. I can remember several times on this forum where people have complained about getting negative votes from cyber-stalkers or trolls and they have emailed Amazon customer service, who wrote back telling them to "wash" those reviews.

People have even copied out here, the instructions they were sent in the email from Amazon, to help them do this.

Posted on 25 Oct 2013 09:19:36 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Oct 2013 09:20:35 BDT
Crookedmouth says:
It doesn't sound like stalking at all. Plenty of reviewers seem to use ARAT to analyses OTHER reviewers' review and voting patterns. That is a much more extreme example of what Emily is admitting to and I've heard no-one complain about it. You can call it "being nosey" or simple curiosity perhaps, but I don't think it qualifies as "stalking" unless it's done systematically, exclusively and over a long period.

As for the washing - I have heard that Amazon suggest using the practise for removing offensive /comments/, but not with regard to unwanted /votes/. But I may simply be unaware of /that/ particular advice.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Oct 2013 09:27:41 BDT
It's the same process and in this case there were comments as well, so it's no different really.

One person's "nosiness" is another's "stalking"; it's a fine line.

Posted on 25 Oct 2013 11:18:49 BDT
I occassionally stalk but mostly I just neg reviews because I can. I revel in my status as Amazon's #1 negative voter

Posted on 25 Oct 2013 12:23:27 BDT
Crookedmouth says:
Posting comments makes it more open and therefore less stalky. Where YOU draw the line is up to you.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Oct 2013 13:36:47 BDT
The Leveller says:
Fake Kenneth

I've seen it mentioned in discussions on here that you yourself or not as the case may be Michelle Manning (weird and why?), are a bit of a negging stalking loon often popping your head up with the odd big girls blouse comment then deleting it. What's your problem?

Someone said you're hovering around the 155 mark with your reviewing account? (calm down now I won't give the name I was told out) If so, you're a decent reviewer, why bother with this Michelle Manning/Kenneth rubbish?

Why so bitter and twisted?

I am not a Kenneth (real) fan by the way.

Regarding negs

As Crookedmouth said, a no vote followed up by a explanatory comment is a respected vote in my book. These hit and run no balls negging s-hit house votes are a joke as are the people who slyly dish them out. Usually after midnight weirdly. Thing is they can be acceptably washed as Amazon set the rules and allow it.

Sweet.

Real Kenneth

"Speaking as somebody who reads a lot of reviews to help me make purchase decisions, I would far rather that a comment explained why a review was wrong in some respect. Whereas if it has unhelpful votes, that tells me nothing, really? It could be that the review is innacurate or it could just be that people didn't like the reviewer's style, had a different personal preference, etc."

You spelled Inaccurate incorrectly there. Just say'n like.

I hope you and Forbes are well.

Back to real life now :-)

Posted on 25 Oct 2013 14:36:39 BDT
"I recently saw a review with comments about the reviewer's review being "worthless" because they had mistyped one word - "That kind of slip-up makes your whole review worthless, because it shows that you really know nothing about the matter discussed here."

Sounds familiar?

Posted on 26 Oct 2013 07:29:50 BDT
Bacchus says:
Interesting comments but none really answers the question as to whether I have a fan whose votes are not been included in the calculation of 'top revierer' ranking. Two days ago, I received two votes in one day and found my ranking had slipped five places. The thing I notice is that many of these recent votes [it's never happened to me before] have been for vine reviews.

Regarding vote washing. Even though Amazon allows it, it still seems dishonest. I am perfectly happy [if somewhat surprised] that some people may find some of my reviews unhelpful. However, I can understand the temptation to vote wash simply because of the disproportionate effect of negative votes on ranking. I would much rather a total ban on vote washing combined with a ranking system that didn't 'punish' reviewers so severely when they get negged.

Posted on 26 Oct 2013 10:05:26 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Oct 2013 10:09:05 BDT
Quiverbow says:
"Two days ago, I received two votes in one day and found my ranking had slipped five places."

That happens all the time. You can move up the ranking without receiving any positives simply because those around you have moved down. (I just noticed I moved down two places overnight only because two people below me have moved up.) While you might have received two positives, those below you may have received ten or something, meaning they move up at your expense.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Oct 2013 17:15:40 GMT
Bacchus - I've received a crop of votes off the same person (unknown to me), but the votes stuck. Don't know why yours should have been deleted.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Oct 2013 17:34:27 GMT
Bacchus says:
I'm afraid I have cleansed those votes - I got 3 negative votes on top of the useless positives.

It's hard not to get paranoid.

Posted on 29 Oct 2013 13:31:38 GMT
Jimi jac says:
A few weeks ago I go 4 positive votes on my last four reviews. Perhaps it's the Positive-Vote-Fairy!

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Oct 2013 17:29:19 GMT
Other people have mentioned the same thing several times on this forum. I think it's done by the people who come here and revel in complaining about the behaviour of others. So they can act completely outraged and point out the lack of integrity amongst reviewers, for example.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Oct 2013 18:29:32 GMT
"people who come here and revel in complaining about the behaviour of others"

You mean, people like you.
‹ 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 (335 discussions)

 

This discussion

Participants:  18
Total posts:  43
Initial post:  17 Oct 2013
Latest post:  4 Mar 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions