Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > top reviewers discussion forum

The (lack of) integrity of reviewers in general...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 513 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2013 21:16:04 GMT
I Readalot says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2013 21:15:18 GMT
I Readalot says:
That's very true Damaskcat, a brilliant review for a fairly obscure book, for example, may struggle to gain a couple of positives whereas a mediocre review for a bestselling author could quickly gain a hundred or more in a short space of time. Also, of course some of the good reviewers you refer to probably spend as much time on one as some of the 'top' reviewers do on 5/6 or more.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2013 13:55:37 GMT
Damaskcat says:
Some very good reviewers are nowhere near the top 100 or even the top 1000.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2013 11:54:59 GMT
J. Forbes says:
I would venture to suggest that this is both blindingly obvious, in a sense, but also not true.

Some people would still write better than others, and some people would write more than others.

Posted on 27 Mar 2013 11:54:40 GMT
Bob says:
Regardless of how the rankings are worked out, it is still as dependent on what those around you do and an individual unless the put up a review that has 1000s of votes does little to effect their position.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2013 11:52:58 GMT
J. Forbes says:
I am just curious, that is all. It is curious people who make things happen.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2013 09:42:12 GMT
Quiverbow says:
If anyone knew how the rankings were worked out, we'd all be joint 'Number One',

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2013 09:26:47 GMT
I Readalot says:
It is strange but you seem to be more concerned about this than most of the top reviewers. Personally I have never stopped to think how the rankings are worked out, it just doesn't seem to matter and I definitely have far more important things in my life to worry about.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2013 07:00:40 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 27 Mar 2013 09:11:40 GMT]

Posted on 26 Mar 2013 22:46:54 GMT
Last edited by the author on 26 Mar 2013 22:48:06 GMT
J. Forbes says:
If I were scoring the top reviewers, I would do something like this:

I would start by giving every review one point. I would then deduct 1/24th of a point for every month that had elapsed since the review was written. This means that reviews over 2 years old would cease to count. (Obviously the maximum deduction would be 1.)

I would then add a figure derived by multiplying one quarter of the total number of reviews by the number of positive votes received as a percentage of the total. This would reward people for getting positive votes, whilst placing the main emphasis on the absolute number of reviews written.

My guess is that Amazon's formula is similarly simple, but it would still defeat any normal human's attempts to work it out.

Posted on 26 Mar 2013 22:42:24 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 27 Mar 2013 08:40:24 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Mar 2013 21:23:38 GMT
The Truth says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Mar 2013 21:11:08 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 28 Mar 2013 11:05:21 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Mar 2013 21:10:18 GMT
J. Forbes says:
Yes, the number must be the most important factor. And time must play a part. They are not going to place much weight on reviews submitted ten years ago. So older reviews will be marked down on a sliding scale.

Then, the number will be modified by the voting score, with more weight given to the number. As there are two or three undisclosed factors, which might get tweaked over the years, it will be impossible to work this out without a lot of computing power, but I don't think the actual formula will be as complex as Durward suggested.

Posted on 26 Mar 2013 21:03:34 GMT
J. Forbes says:
I notice Malcolm M has decided that posting here was unwise. What he did to incur the displeasure of the slimy ones we can only guess. Just being human was probably sufficient.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Mar 2013 21:00:47 GMT
Last edited by the author on 26 Mar 2013 21:01:26 GMT
The Truth says:
I know that, for a fact, the number of reviews you post affects your ranking. Quite a big effect. More than votes I suspect.

Amazon state that themselves in fact somewhere.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Mar 2013 20:58:20 GMT
J. Forbes says:
I don't disagree. But reviews provide the rationale behind their scoring system, although Peter Durward Harris believes other undisclosed factors also play a part in deciding which rung of the ladder you reach.

I think in fact there is probably quite a simple calculation which computes a score based on the number of reviews submitted over a given period of time, together with the percentage of favourable votes. No doubt you could use a computer to crunch the data and work out the formula.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Mar 2013 20:29:25 GMT
Last edited by the author on 26 Mar 2013 20:29:39 GMT
The Truth says:
Forbes:
"Amazon will never abolish scoring on reviews because, despite the flaws, it's the only mechanism they have for assessing whether a review is helpful."

I don't think Amazon give two hoots whether or not a review is helpful or not (not really, anyway) I think the real reason behind the charts and votes is to hook reviewers and keep them writing reviews.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Mar 2013 13:26:30 GMT
J. Forbes says:
Don't post here and review under the same name. This particular forum is a magnet for Amazon's nastiest neggers. These are some of the most bitter and twisted people in the entire universe. If "people" is the right word.

Posted on 26 Mar 2013 13:12:37 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 26 Mar 2013 13:50:43 GMT]

Posted on 26 Mar 2013 12:14:29 GMT
J. Forbes says:
Amazon will never abolish scoring on reviews because, despite the flaws, it's the only mechanism they have for assessing whether a review is helpful.

They should, however, abolish scoring on posts. It is utterly pointless. Some brainless wonder (or it could be two BWs) has negged both your post and the Damaskcat's. And yet there is nothing in either of them that a real human being could take exception to.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Mar 2013 12:14:25 GMT
Last edited by the author on 26 Mar 2013 12:16:52 GMT
Quiverbow says:
Same thing happened to me. I gave a telly two stars and someone gave me a negative and commented that I wasn't getting the right experience as I wasn't watching films on it via a Blu ray player. Eh?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Mar 2013 11:32:15 GMT
Last edited by the author on 26 Mar 2013 11:34:03 GMT
Damaskcat says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 26 Mar 2013 10:21:37 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 26 Mar 2013 13:50:54 GMT]

Posted on 18 Mar 2013 22:39:15 GMT
J. Forbes says:
I have a hard life, it's true.
‹ Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 21 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 (529 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Participants:  45
Total posts:  513
Initial post:  1 Mar 2013
Latest post:  30 Jan 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions