Customer Discussions > top reviewers discussion forum

Announcement

Honouring our top reviewers over the last 11 years


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 316 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 9 Dec 2011 01:20:39 GMT
Last edited by the author on 9 Dec 2011 01:44:07 GMT
Hello Top Reviewers!

We'd like to honour our superb reviewers with a new Hall of Fame. Many of you have been writing for years and have become pillars of the reviewing community. We know your names. Customers know your names. You deserve a bit of glory for your long term dedication, which has amounted to an invaluable contribution to the Amazon community.

We are creating a new Hall of Fame Reviewer page that will acknowledge the multi-year accomplishments of our elite reviewers. Inducted members will receive a permanent badge that will show next to each one of their reviews. To kick off the Hall of Fame, we scanned through our archives starting from the year 2000 and will induct top reviewers from the last 11 years.

Here's how it will work:
1. Any reviewer who rises to the top 10 rank on Amazon, even for a day, will be recognised as a Hall of Fame reviewer and immediately inducted.
2. We specially inducted the top 10 reviewers from the Classic Ranking as of today. (If you think you were in the top 10 and we missed you, please let us know.)
3. We will highlight the number of years each reviewer has achieved the Hall of Fame. We are awed by the reviewers who made it to the top ten year after year.
4. Since the Hall of Fame is a much stronger representation of our oldest and best reviewers, it will replace the Classic Reviewer Ranking.
5. There are no changes to the New Reviewer Ranking - it will simply be called the Top Reviewer Ranking from now on.

This is a big change, and we think it's a good one. As always, we want to hear what you think too.

Posted on 9 Dec 2011 01:32:19 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 9 Dec 2011 04:37:06 GMT
Last edited by the author on 9 Dec 2011 04:45:31 GMT
Agma says:
I have never got anywhere near the top 10 rank, neither do I aspire to get there. The people however, who have wrote much more than me on here and have reached that pinnacle thoroughly do deserve a Hall of fame placement. It's unfortunate for the people who have been in the past or are presently close. But this recognition for the top reviewers is a-lot better than before for sure. As for the change in rank, I was a previously ranked 900 new reviewer so the top 1000 badge stays there for now.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Dec 2011 07:27:08 GMT
Damaskcat says:
Top 10 not top 100!!!

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Dec 2011 12:48:52 GMT
Last edited by the author on 9 Dec 2011 13:03:43 GMT
It specifically stated the top 100 earlier. They've edited it. On amazon.com they inducted top 100. Why have they done the top 10 here (after saying top 100 and editing the post)? Perhaps their programmer followed the information wrongly and they favour a cover-up to going back and rectifying it. After their edit, their 2nd point stands as pure tautology, stating nothing that is not already 100% covered by that stated in point 1. I can't see any obvious reason why amazon.com needs the closing top 100 in the classic rankings to enter the hall of fame, where amazon.co.uk might only want the current top 10.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Dec 2011 12:59:57 GMT
Dragonlord says:
I don't really care about this but can we please have the missing Listmania data back please.

Posted on 9 Dec 2011 14:08:29 GMT
Last edited by the author on 9 Dec 2011 14:10:55 GMT
The Truth says:
Well I know of at least one top 10 reviewer who regularly 'cheats' and goes around negging reviews - so not sure they should get a badge, and I think Classic Reviewer is a much better system than the New Reviewer system.

And if I wanted to - as has been demonstrated on more than one occasion recently - I (or anyone) could get in the top ten (even to number one) in a matter of months with little real effort... so not sure this fits in with Amazon's description of the badge worthy.

"Since the Hall of Fame is a much stronger representation of our oldest and best reviewers, it will replace the Classic Reviewer Ranking. "

Not sure this statement is true if you only have to hit the top ten for a day... the classic reviewer system takes time and effort to climb.

On the face if it - at good idea perhaps, but as usual, ill thought out and poorly implemented by Amazon me thinks. I like the idea of some sort of permanent badge though. The more medals the better as incentive for people still involved in trying to climb the charts. But it's too little too late for me... I'd just have prefered it if Amazon got rid of HDNL and cleaned house by sorting out the trolls/charts.

Sort the chart out and then worry about badges and rewards - because until that's done any badges are all worthless.

And dito what Dragon Lord says.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Dec 2011 15:14:14 GMT
Damaskcat says:
Have you looked at the Hall of Fame? It seems not otherwise you would understand what they have done.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Dec 2011 15:25:58 GMT
Of course I've looked at the Hall of Fame. A rather more pertinent question would be whether you have looked at the Hall of Fame on Amazon.com- which shows that the top 100 in the classic reviewer rankings were all inducted into the hall of fame, as they initially stated was happening here (before they sneakily changed the part of the post that stated this).

Posted on 9 Dec 2011 15:36:10 GMT
Last edited by the author on 9 Dec 2011 15:45:26 GMT
Quiverbow says:
Maybe Amazon.com has a Top 100 Hall of Fame because there are far more people who review on that site. Just a guess on my part.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Dec 2011 17:59:23 GMT
The Truth says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 9 Dec 2011 18:11:14 GMT
Maybe- but why don't they also induct everyone who has ever been in the top 100 into the amazon.com hall of fame? Doesn't seem very consistent to change one figure but not the other.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Dec 2011 18:59:00 GMT
Quiverbow says:
Because this isn't .com.

Posted on 9 Dec 2011 21:54:35 GMT
Geek Girl 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 9 Dec 2011 23:40:32 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 10 Dec 2011 01:10:45 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Dec 2011 01:26:45 GMT
The Truth says:
wayne.
I'm not really understanding the point you make here. I think QB was saying there's a difference between .com Amazon and .co.uk Amazon, because of the sheer size of the customer base, and therefor the reviewer base, which does make sense - to me anyway.

what QB is saying (correct me if I'm wrong QB) makes sense to me: that at.com you're inducted if you reach the top 100 and over here in the UK you are inducted if you reach the top 10, and to me that seems understandable, because it's easier to reach the top 10 over here than it is in the US because of the size of the market/ reviewer place... Or vice versa.

maybe I have the wrong end of the stick on both counts?

PS : I like, and have read, your reviews ( on and off) for a while now. in fact they inspired me (read, ripped off) one of my lists... Pervert essentials: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dirty-Pervert-Essentials/lm/R1FR7CQR07M1MW/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full

I think you and 'Doreen' might find it 'helpful' :-)

Posted on 10 Dec 2011 01:27:47 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Dec 2011 01:32:03 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 10 Dec 2011 01:46:05 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Dec 2011 01:47:54 GMT
The Truth says:
Youre using big words like tautology at 2 in the morning when ive just rocked in on a Friday night. I'll have to come back to this tomorrow and process this when I'm sober...

You and Doreen have fun tonight...

Posted on 10 Dec 2011 04:14:18 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 10 Dec 2011 14:38:40 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2011 06:24:43 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Dec 2011 16:23:40 GMT
Molly Brown says:
Hello Pundit, this is the one you should be looking for, Thomas Edison is there and Victor Hugo too!
http://www.iphalloffame.com/

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2011 08:15:02 GMT
Damaskcat 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 10 Dec 2011 10:05:28 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Dec 2011 10:08:52 GMT
so was I. And, yes, believe it or not, the notion of clicking on the icon for that page had indeed occurred to me. Have you looked at what I typed in my posts? It seems not otherwise you would understand what I was talking about- ie. a change of policy followed by a cover-up on THIS site.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2011 11:56:36 GMT
Damaskcat says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 10 Dec 2011 12:03:46 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Dec 2011 12:05:07 GMT
Have you looked at their post? It seems not otherwise you would understand what they have done. Note the edit- 12 minutes after my reply.

Posted on 10 Dec 2011 12:53:30 GMT
Quiverbow says:
Well Wayne, maybe whoever posted it on behalf of Amazon made an error in the number by adding an extra 0 at the end. It happens. It's the Top 10 here and that's that!
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 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
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  41
Total posts:  316
Initial post:  9 Dec 2011
Latest post:  13 Dec 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions