anomalies in the current uk reviewer ranking system and suggested changes...

"Go and find something more useful to do with your life :) "

You've posted here where you obviously feel out of place. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Actually, most of us spend leisure time doing things that are not useful, but which we find to be fun. We each have our own idea of what constitutes fun. It would be a dull world if everybody enjoyed doing the same things.

"the point is, if you are going to operate a system make sure it works! "

The ranking system appears to be working as Amazon intended, which is not the same thing as saying that it works as customers or reviewers would wish - and as we have divergent views, Amazon could never please all of us anyway.

"what happens when you get to the top?"

You get a lot of snippy comments and the occasional media interview - and the results of those are decidedly mixed. We all know that the British media like to twist things round, but it's only when one is written about that one realizes just how bad it can be.

"Do you really care about a ranking system that is by nature going to be judgmental one way or the other? "

Or that Amazon could replace at some future unspecified date? Those who build their reviewing strategy around the current ranking system could be in for a shock if that ever happens.

"the ranking system, as described by Mark, defies any form of logic."

But there is logic to it even if it's not obvious from what Mark posted.

The basics of Amazon's reviewer ranking system

The current system was installed in America in October 2008 and in Europe in March 2010. Nobody outside Amazon knows exactly how it works, but we have a fair idea. The system is complicated and deliberately so, but here are the main points.

1 Rankings are calculated using an algorithm that takes into account both helpful votes and unhelpful votes, but also factors in recent activity.

2 Unhelpful votes weigh more heavily than helpful votes, and the weight ratio increases as the number of unhelpful votes there are on an individual review. As such, a review with 7 out of 10 helpful votes is not good, but one with 70 out of 100 is bad and 700 out of 1,000 is dreadful, if you are concerned about your ranking.

3 The overall percentage of helpful votes is shown for each reviewer, and this also appears to have some bearing on ranking, but I'm not sure if it really works that way. As noted above, a lot depends on how those unhelpful votes are distributed. 100 unhelpful votes on one review will do more damage than 100 unhelpful votes spread over 100 reviews.

4 Although they don't weigh as much as unhelpful votes, it is advantageous to have one extremely popular review with hundreds of helpful votes providing it doesn't attract too many unhelpful votes. The best chance of writing such a review is to focus on gadgets. Whenever reviews of books, music, movies and games attract hundreds of votes, they invariably attract a significant number of unhelpful votes, however well they are done.

5 Recent activity is another mystery, but if you don't post reviews for a while, your ranking will slide downwards. Remember that number 1 is top while the bottom can be measured in millions, so down means your ranking number gets bigger. Some people get this the wrong way round. However, if you post lots of reviews that don't get votes, this may also damage your ranking. Nevertheless, unhelpful votes are more damaging than inactivity or a lack of votes.

6 Customers can vote however they wish, in the same way that voters at political elections do, so even the most brilliant reviews can be voted unhelpful and even the worst reviews can be voted helpful. In any case, customers look at reviews differently. Some prefer short, snappy reviews while others prefer more detail. Don't worry about it. You can't please everybody, so just please yourself.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

"Why complain about something you can't change?"

Well .... I suspect that Amazon replaced the previous system because of complaints that it wasn't fair. Not the odd complaint here and there, but a flood of them.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

[Deleted by the author on 13 Jun 2012 15:27:54 BDT]

From what I understand it's three reviews of a certain reviewer... So if you read three of my reviews and voted positively for each of them, all the votes you made would get wiped off. I think, anyway.

I'm guessing there's some sort of cooling off period - so you could vote for say two reviews one day and pop back a week later, come across another review by te same author and vote again, and the votes would still stand. I'm not sure though.

PDH might now. He seems to know the workings of Amazon intricately.

PDH - do you know how many votes you're allowed to cast on one reviewers reviews before the filters kick in and delete them?

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

"It's just a bit of harmless fun, that makes absolutely no difference to you if you don't want to get involved with it."

It isn't though.

It make s a difference because without the chart people would only be writing reviews because they want to write them to be helpful.

The second you introduce rankings it suddenly becomes a competition so you suddenly get fake reviews, shill accounts, etc and you find that the number of reviews which aren't genuine suddenly go up because some people are reviewing purely to work their way up the rankings

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

AndyBSG:

Good point. But I don't see how shill accounts would affect you or anyone reading reviews. Shill reviews are another matter - but they have nothing to do with the charts.

Fake reviews. Meh... maybe. But my guess is rarely - and one fake review amongst a 100 or so genuine ones for a product isn't going to have a huge effect.

Overall though, the number of people who partake in the chart and are avid reviewers is miniscule - I think it's probably less than 50, as I don't consider myself to be 'in it' or bothered by it and, in the past, have gone months without posting a review and not dropped one place from my spot in the top 100... if I'm in the top 100 and not all that active, and don't drop - I really don't think there's that many involved.

And then, out of those 50 or so 'active' reviewers, not all of them are going to be writing dodgy reviews. A few might be, but so what. Amazon is full of rubbish reviews (item arrived on time etc.) so it really shouldn't make much difference to the buyer... it's not like you base you buying decision on one review, do you?

I think Vine reviews are more of a problem than the chart - I have come across plenty of corrupt Vine reviews.

"I think Vine reviews are more of a problem than the chart - I have come across plenty of corrupt Vine reviews."

That needs an explanation. How are they 'corrupt'?

KL Wren should be in the top ten because of the quality of her reviews. Her reviews are clearly some of the best around. It shouldn't just be a numbers game.

How are they 'corrupt'?

Corrupt is perhaps too strong a word but I have noticed that some of the Vine reviews that are posted almost immediatly are copy and paste from either the publishers blurb or manufacturers info and so are of no value.

Bob/QB:
Vine reviews showing no or little effort are all to common. Then there are reviews you come across that they reviewer clearly hasn't even bothered to use or open the item. Take this review entitled 'Sorry, it wasnt for me':

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/B006U1AWEW/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar

There have been more than one remakes of this series and I assume the reviewer is talking about one of them, as he certainly isn't talking about this original series. Makes me wonder if he even bothered to watch it.

Perhaps the word 'corrupt' is a bit strong, but one wonders what happened here. Let's replace the word corrupt with dodgey then... And that's being kind.

Gaskelll:
Never come across a KL Wren review?

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

total agreement, positive votes are what counts, not percentages or volume of mediocre reviews

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

It isn't just a numbers game, see further up page - direct link http://www.amazon.co.uk/forum/top%20reviewers/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2AH5S1CY4QEMR&cdMsgNo=79&cdPage=4&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L9CX2FYIROJ8&cdMsgID=Mx70L6CGIN6MKU#Mx70L6CGIN6MKU

but it's assessed by computer because with over 2 million reviewing accounts there is no other practical way of doing it. So numbers are involved, but much more subtly than who gets the most votes or who writes the most reviews.

I am sure there is a mathematician amongst us who could analyse everything and come up with a formula. But so what. I just review because I like reviewing although I must admit if I was near one of the bounderies, top 10 or something I would like to cross the barrier but could not be bothered to try and work out how.

I got to 11 then realised that I was on a hiding to nothing. I'm at 39 now, drifting slowly ever downwards, but I'm free to write reviews that lots of people disagree with, and not mind when the negs trickle in.

Freedom!