Customer Discussions > top reviewers discussion forum

Effect of negative votes on ranking


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 391 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 16 Nov 2012 10:56:54 GMT
Yes. Were you not around to see Hiawatha Winstanley posting on this forum? He deleted all his posts and later changed his name, but he used ARAT to look at other people's reviews.

Posted on 16 Nov 2012 11:44:43 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Nov 2012 09:55:38 GMT
Crookedmouth says:
Yes. But I never paid much attention - it looked like championship level trolling. I never made the connection

Posted on 18 Nov 2012 12:33:38 GMT
Seems to ba a big rise in amount of spiteful/tactical negs. Sad sad people. Anyway, I've taken the light hearted approach now.

Posted on 18 Nov 2012 14:16:51 GMT
Crookedmouth says:
May the fleas of a thousand camels infest their nethers.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Nov 2012 08:55:09 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 20 Nov 2012 09:52:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Nov 2012 09:55:08 GMT
Crookedmouth says:
The Wikipedia definition. "An expert ... is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on //research, experience//, or occupation and in a particular area of study"

So expertise doesn't necessarily come from practise, it can be acquired by exposure. Presumably PDH has built his expertise on the latter?

Edit: I believe that Blaster Bates defined an expert as "a drip under pressure" (expert - spurt. Do you see what he did there?)

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Nov 2012 10:22:55 GMT
It is expertise, but reviewing requires other skills. I have built up significant knowledge about the music I listen to beginning in the late seventies, and while I don't consider myself a writer, I find that I can communicate adequately in that medium as an amateur reviewer. I've come across other music fans who sometimes know a lot of stuff that I don't, but they lack the ability to communicate within the review framework. As for those musicians, I wouldn't have any music to review if it weren't for them, but even being a musician doesn't automatically make one a good reviewer. Anyway, seeing Amazon's crackdown on authors reviewing books, musicians might yet be limited as to what music they can review on Amazon even if they want to. I know that one person who reviewed some CDs for which he wrote the booklet notes has had his reviews of those products deleted.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Nov 2012 10:30:32 GMT
Quiverbow says:
Are you suggesting that anyone who isn't a musician, composr, etc. cannot be an expert in that field? Is it just professional footballers that can be the only experts on that sport? Is it only authors that can write reviews on books?

Simply because someone hasn't played, taught, been published, acted, etc. doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Nov 2012 10:00:14 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 21 Nov 2012 10:14:24 GMT
Last edited by the author on 21 Nov 2012 10:25:05 GMT
Amazon want customers to provide reviews without payment. The people you see on TV are all paid, in their cases enough to make a living out of it.

If Amazon were to pay me enough to make a living out of it, your taxes wouldn't have to be used to pay my benefits. As it is, Amazon not only don't want to pay for customer reviews. but they delete reviews by anybody who is paid from other sources, if they learn of such reviews.

So it could be said that Amazon get what they pay for, except that some of us enjoy the hobby and are happy to do it for free.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Nov 2012 10:23:50 GMT
PS when are going to demonstrate your reviewing abilities?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Nov 2012 11:42:56 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 21 Nov 2012 11:54:55 GMT
Mr. J. Ryden says:
I would imagine over 2 million reviewers would beg to differ.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Nov 2012 12:05:29 GMT
Last edited by the author on 21 Nov 2012 12:05:50 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 21 Nov 2012 12:11:23 GMT
Mr. J. Ryden says:
I don't understand your line of reasoning; can you elaborate?

Posted on 21 Nov 2012 13:22:27 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 21 Nov 2012 13:54:40 GMT
Mr. J. Ryden says:
You haven't elaborated unless stating the bleeding obvious counts?

How does Amazon, being a profit-seeking organisation, influence the partiality/impartiality of its unpaid reviewers? That's a non-argument.

Posted on 21 Nov 2012 14:12:09 GMT
Last edited by the author on 21 Nov 2012 14:13:47 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 21 Nov 2012 14:19:47 GMT
Mr. J. Ryden says:
The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Posted on 21 Nov 2012 14:29:15 GMT
Crookedmouth says:
...and the advantages of one over the other are not as simply expressed as Kenneth seems to suggest.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Nov 2012 20:59:49 GMT
The Emperor 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 22 Nov 2012 09:53:04 GMT
"Amazon particularly don't want experts, who would point out flaws and problems with products."

Customers DO point out flaws. Even though I am largely successful at avoiding crap, I don't hesitate to point it out when I buy it. Other reviewers also point out flaws. The reviewing system would have no credibility without some critical reviews.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Nov 2012 15:31:33 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 27 Nov 2012 10:05:33 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Nov 2012 10:44:41 GMT
Your analogy doesn't work. When musicians discuss music, they may well discuss aspects of the creative in a level of detail that mere listeners would struggle to understand. They very likely also discuss listener reaction to their creation. Listeners discuss the end result of the creative process, whether that end result is recorded or live performances.

On this forum, the discussions are not limited to the the end result - the reviews - but also mention many aspects of the creative process, just as musicians do. Non-reviewers can sometimes contribute usefully to these discussions, but normally they don't. You are a classic example of a non-reviewer who doesn't contribute anything useful because you neither understand the issues nor do you want to understand them. Because of that, you have no empathy with reviewers and your comments are often heavily voted down.

Posted on 27 Nov 2012 12:15:50 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Nov 2012 12:17:45 GMT
Crookedmouth says:
"but also mention many aspects of the creative process,"

Actually, a glance down the list of most recent topics in this form rather gives the lie to the word "many". :-)

1. Negative votes.
2. Personal shout-outs and (e.g. "Hell raisers" and "Who thinks America")
3. Yodel
4. Totally off-topic (weight training and St John's)
5. Other stuff about Az (Amazon Locker and Black Friday)
[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
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  67
Total posts:  391
Initial post:  12 May 2011
Latest post:  20 Sep 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 13 customers

Search Customer Discussions