oh, the humanity...

[CurtisEdmonds]

I am proud to say tonight that I have deleted most of the movie reviews that I had posted to epinions. The continued decline in Income Share has prompted me to remove most of the movie reviews I've written. I have kept around only the highest-earning reviews (and those that I haven't yet transferred to another location), consigning those that haven't earned a significant amount of IS lately to the great dustbin.

(And I will probably move most of my book reviews over to amazon.com, sooner or later.)

Never fear, though; all the deleted reviews can still be found at my personal website:

www.txreviews.com

Thank you for your time. You may now return to your lives.

(Planet of the Apes review to follow)

[hadassahchana[$]]

Oh no!!!

Say it isn't so, Curtis!


I know IS sucked a sock this month- I didn't even notice that it had been added, and after I found out, I didn't believe it.

However, I have had good months before, and last summer, if I remember correctly, there was a decline in IS, too, only to be followed by a larger amount in the fall - after everyone came back inside and turned on their computers after summer weather turned nasty.

Curtis, I really hope you don't go - I'd miss reading your wonderful movie reviews.

Cindy

[frazzledspice]

Curtis, I haven't written many movie reviews, but I imagine that they follow a cycle. There is probably a resurgence of interest when the movie is released on video, or, perhaps, if it is nominated for a Golden Globe or an Academy Award.

Of course, it's up to you where you post your reviews.

One thing nice about posting reviews to Amazon is that the only people who read them are people who are sincerely interested in purchasing or learning more about the book. You know, immediately, that your audience shares a bond with you.

When I glance through my old reviews, I am sometimes amazed to see how many more people are looking at them now than previously. I know that this is helping them make informed decisions.

Someone e-mailed me today with the comment that he thought certain categories were awarded disproportionately in different months. He said this month all his outdoor epinions did really well, even ones that were quite old.

When I dislike a product, I feel that the more attention my review gets, the more accountable a company will have to be (because lots of attention is being drawn to their bad policies.)

Maybe someday AAA Auto Insurance will stop trying to put people with physical illnesses like diabetes into the assigned risk pool because they take a medication AAA doesn't like. Maybe someday State Farm Auto Insurance will stop trying to put drivers in the assigned risk pool because their roommates, who don't drive their cars, have had an accident. Maybe the next time Econolodge has a fire in their building, they will send someone up to awaken the sleeping guests. I can dream, can't I?

But I'm glad you're going to keep your reviews posted somewhere.

[CurtisEdmonds]

I am not going anywhere, not really. The thing of it is is that I had over 100 reviews that hadn't earned any IS in the past three months -- reviews that had earned at least some IS previously, and were still getting hits. If Eps isn't paying me for those reviews, they're not entitled to keep them.

I am only going to contribute to Eps as long as they pay me. I had been making about {X} a month in IS before this year and was very pleased with that. Now, it's something less than half of that.

[hadassahchana[$]]

To me, this is such a stupid example of Epinions' terrible business sense. If I were Nirav, I would want to make darn good and sure that my writers who bring in the huge numbers of non-member hits stayed happy. Really, really happy.

I never make much in IS, and that's ok. I am under no illusion that non-members are going to storm the site in order to read my review of a book detailing gay men's friendships, or a novel of the political and ecological state of China. However, someone who reviews all of the new movies, and does it as well as Curtis (and others as well) and who bring in the numbers ought to be better compensated than this . This stinks, and ultimately it will be bad for all of us . No one is going to come up with the notion of doing a Google search to see if by chance anyone has written an article on Epinions about fox urine. However, if I get really lucky, someone who has stopped in to read Curtis's newest trashing of some mindless waste of two hours just might stumble accross soemthing I've written, and I am pretty grateful for that.

If Curtis and some other really good writers hang it up, we are all going to lose - Nirav most of all.




Cindy

[jrk]

Can't say that I blame you, Curtis, though it's a shame that Epinions is succeeding at driving yet more of the quality reviews off site. It daily appears that quality counts for very little to Epinions. Who knows? They're still afloat, so perhaps they're right. Maybe quality doesn't count. But it's sure a kick in the teeth to those members like you who write their hearts out. If Epinions doesn't think these book and film reviews deserve a piece of the IS pie, at least they could ease the restrictions on posting the reviews concurrently on other sites.

I have book reviews that have never earned a cent in IS and many others that have only made a few pennies. Yet I know for a fact that several people have purchased books as a direct result of some of my recommendations (you, for one!), so that would seem to indicate that these opinions fulfilled Epinions' stated purpose of "influencing purchasing decisions." The thanks? No IS. It's a tad demoralizing.

If I were to post the same reviews on my own web page with a link to purchase at Amazon or B&N, those sites would give me a kickback (I think it's 7% of the purchase price? which beats the hell out of $0 IS). It's a pity that Epinions doesn't allow us some option to have such links embedded into the bodies of our reviews. That way, if we did influence a purchase, we'd directly receive the benefit without having to rely upon the vast generosity of IS. As it stands, the only real reward for book and film reviews these days is the pleasure derived from some of the feedback we receive. That's the only reason some of us still bother to write. Guess the ego-boo just isn't cutting it for you these days. I'm so sorry!

Well geeze... I have to say that I agree in principle at least. If I had a site that allowed me to get much more cash and if people were reading my work on that site then I might very well be inclined to just have my reviews on that site. My older reviews get basically no coverage and besides that (or because of it), people don't read them much.

In concept I am inclined to do cool things with them like possibly updating my FreeSampleClub review (I have been meaning to do that for a while) but in practical application, I would rather start writing a new review because my older review will never get seen The same sort of thing goes for my older reviews. I was even thinking about setting a review up that I might update on a regular basis but...

Inertia has set in for me and even though I have seen a couple of them again since I wrote them and could probably update them...

Why?

Epinions apparently feels as though I have been adequately compensated for them and it sure has taken away from my enthusiasm and innovation. The biggest thing that I have done lately is that I actually submitted a few of my reviews to IMdB.

I had started tweaking my affiliate website before e2 even and was getting into it a bit but afterwards it has just been a chore... and it doesn't seem as though the effort would be compensated. It seems as if Epinions is trying to shut down benefits as quickly as possible.

Sigh.

Yeah I know it is in an effort to save money but in a lot of cases it makes site navigation a pain in the butt. I am personally much less likely to check out a person's 'see more reviews' because it feels too fuzzy when I do it and because it is a pain in the butt to click through multiple screens. Now this is from a person who is interested in checking out things that I like! I am talking from a *BUYER'S* perspective here. I want to see what movies people are recommending. I want to find obscure movies to rent. I even wouldn't mind checking out Science Fiction/Fantasy books that people read or music that I might want to listen to (in the Rock category and preferably newer music that is on the radio right now--and I have been listening to Alternative music lately). Movies were cool in the past but aren't now (I couldn't care less about any category except New releases in films though). Books/music... Well...

I also would like to have the option available to check out people so that I can have some real solid leads when I actually want to buy certain things. I want people that write solid reviews from things that they own and people that have owned multiple things in whatever category. To tell you the truth, I haven't found a whole lot of people in categories outside of my field of interest lately.

Part of this is because I haven't been that enthused about the site but part of it is also because Epinions' own method of recommending people for this purpose (Advisors) is currently hopelessly wonky and pretty much geared more towards forcing (encouraging??? Shrug... That is a bit too pleasant a word for this mental rape I feel that the push for advisors has become:p Yeah the term "mental rape" might be... er... *is* a bit too harsh so maybe someone could come up with a balance between the two terms ) people to write more in order to flesh out their database. This push on first reviews doesn't necessarily get the best reviews out there or even encourage them. Frequently movies (to use an example) hadn't been reviewed because there simply wasn't that much to the film or things of that sort. Then the payoff is that you get to keep your advisorship... until the next month at least. I write first reviews on things and can say that the payoff monetarily isn't worth the effort of finding something new to write on so the only thing there is the advisor thing.

Ummm.. Note that the advisorship has become quite a benefit though. Epinions has rewarded advisors in a fair number of ways in that they are ranking them differently (at for the rating lists and I am fairly sure on the rankings of reviews again as well). They also only e-mail advisors on new things and sure listen to them... At least somewhat. Really shortsightedly though. The whole thing is mostly subliminal rather than overt and if they actually wanted to make it a big reward then they should actually do ***things*** for advisors instead of this political crap.

Sigh.

Ander

[kurt_messick]

Ok, question...

I was always under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that one couldn't post reviews elsewhere, even after they had been taken down from Epinions.

Was this a mistake on my part? Have the rules been changed?

[theeye]

Originally posted by kurt_messick
Ok, question...

I was always under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that one couldn't post reviews elsewhere, even after they had been taken down from Epinions.

Was this a mistake on my part? Have the rules been changed?

You are correct and the rules haven't changed, but there's one little exception.

You can post your reviews on a web site with content limited to {small integer number which I think is 4 or 5} users, so long as you include an attribution and link to Epinions in the officially sanctioned format.

Whether or not you've taken them down from Epinions is irrelevant: when you posted them to Epinions initially, you gave Epinions exclusive rights to the on-line display with only a few little exceptions. You can take them down if you want -- but that doesn't take away Epinions rights.

Curtis referred to posting on a personal web site, so I presume that the number of contributors criterion is satisfied -- and I assume that he'll post the appropriate attributions as well. If so, he's still in compliance with the contractual agreement he entered into when he posted those reviews on Epinions.

Check out the User Agreement on Epinions for exact details. You did that, of course, before you posted your first epinion.

- TheEye, who did, in fact, read the User Agreement first and decided it was ok by her -- otherwise she wouldn't have posted

[kurt_messick]

Actually, Curtis mentioned moving his book reviews over to Amazon -- certainly a site beyond the small-number of contributors list.

That's what prompted my question.

[theeye]

Originally posted by kurt_messick
Actually, Curtis mentioned moving his book reviews over to Amazon -- certainly a site beyond the small-number of contributors list.

That's what prompted my question.

Ah, yes, so he did. Well, that's definitely a violation. Hopefully he'll reconsider. If not, Epinions will be well within their rights (both legally and ethically) to demand that Amazon remove them.

I do understand the frustration, particularly of reviewers who've written essentially professional quality material, at not earning what they think they deserve.

But no one forced anyone to post their work on Epinions. If you want to go to the trouble and expense of publishing and publicizing your work yourself, you are free to do so. If, however, you decide to take Epinions up on their offer to publish it for you, under certain clearly stated conditions, it seems clear to me that you're obligated to live up to that agreement, even if it seems unfair to you in retrospect.

[suzer]

I won't get into the legalities here. I'll be sad to see you leave Curtis, but I understand your disappointment and frustration. Please reconsider.


http://www.epinions.com/user-suzer

[suzer]

"No one is going to come up with the notion of doing a Google search to see if by chance anyone has written an article on Epinions about fox urine"


Cindy, surely you don't mean people won't read my newest review on deluxe fox urine. That hurts. That really hurts.


http://www.epinions.com/user-suzer

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by theeye

But no one forced anyone to post their work on Epinions. If you want to go to the trouble and expense of publishing and publicizing your work yourself, you are free to do so. If, however, you decide to take Epinions up on their offer to publish it for you, under certain clearly stated conditions, it seems clear to me that you're obligated to live up to that agreement, even if it seems unfair to you in retrospect.

I sort of agree, or at least that's the way I operate, but since watching Themestream and similar sites totally violate their agreements with their writers, it seems there's a real imbalance of power, and I'm not as sure as I once was that writers are ethically bound to keep their agreements.

Epinions so far has been keeping to their agreements, more or less, but they seem to be in the kind of trouble which is often the prelude to sites breaking their agreements with little or no notice. And Epinions is also delivering less than it was at the time we signed on -- less eroyalties, less income share, and a lot less functionality (I'm finding it almost impossible to use the site these days because of all the bugs).

Actually, what I wish is that Epinions would loosen up on some of their licensing restrictions. I don't think it would really hurt them if someone simultaneously posted on Epinions and Amazon. At the very least, I'd like to be free to post stuff on my own website with a link description of my choice, not the dorky blurb that the user agreement says we have to use.

[theeye]

Originally posted by AuntieEmma


I sort of agree, or at least that's the way I operate, but since watching Themestream and similar sites totally violate their agreements with their writers, it seems there's a real imbalance of power, and I'm not as sure as I once was that writers are ethically bound to keep their agreements.

Epinions so far has been keeping to their agreements, more or less, but they seem to be in the kind of trouble which is often the prelude to sites breaking their agreements with little or no notice. And Epinions is also delivering less than it was at the time we signed on -- less eroyalties, less income share, and a lot less functionality (I'm finding it almost impossible to use the site these days because of all the bugs).

Actually, what I wish is that Epinions would loosen up on some of their licensing restrictions. I don't think it would really hurt them if someone simultaneously posted on Epinions and Amazon. At the very least, I'd like to be free to post stuff on my own website with a link description of my choice, not the dorky blurb that the user agreement says we have to use.

Let me respond to each of your paragraphs in turn:

1. I have no idea how the other sites live up (or not) to their agreements, but that's pretty clearly irrelevant to the agreements Epinions has with its writers.

2. Yes, Epinions is delivering less than they used to. But that possibility was always clear from their agreement. When I first signed on and read the agreement, I immediately saw that they were not promising to continue paying me and that I was nonetheless agreeing to give them rights to my work.

If I viewed myself as more of a professional writer, I might have walked away right then and there. But I figured that I could live with that agreement.

And so I don't see why the fact that Epinions is now paying less -- which they always reserved the right to do -- should affect my obligation to continue living up to my agreement. I might ruefully conclude that it wasn't such a great idea to have agreed to it in the first place -- but given that the likelihood of my writing, publishing and publicizing my reviews absent Epinions' help was practically zip, I'd be dishonest to conclude that.

Of course, that's just ME. Others might well have found the initiative to make more lucrative arrangements for themselves -- and they would then be justified in feeling rueful, but still not justified in reneging on their agreements.

3. I agree that it might be wise for Epinions to revisit their rules for posting and possibly loosen the restrictions. But I don't think they should do it because it would be "more fair" to me. I think they should do (or consider) it because it might make good business sense for them. They're a business, after all.

I should also point out that despite presenting this as a rebuttal of your points, I don't really think that you and I disagree much. We're both prepared to play by the rules such as they are.

Does Amazon have any restrictions on whether THEIR content can be shared with other sites? I doubt very much that Amazon would consent to a link at the bottom of a review that says "see more reviews of this at Epinions."

In order for Epinions to be a viable product, it MUST have something that is unique and special. Since it's not their product selection <:cough:> and since it's not a place where members can buy anything and everything <:cough, cough:>, it MUST be the quality of the consumer reviews.

Actually, I think all 3 things are required for Epinions to remain viable, but for now, what is keeping it going is the unique content. Why would I go to Epinions for that if I could find that and more someplace else?

I adore Curtis. I really do. But I also hope that he doesn't test Epinions in this area.

[nicholmere]

Originally posted by gracef
Does Amazon have any restrictions on whether THEIR content can be shared with other sites? I doubt very much that Amazon would consent to a link at the bottom of a review that says "see more reviews of this at Epinions."...

I remember when I first joined Epinions that I thought it would be great to write a mini-review on Amazon with a link to the big-review on Epinions, but there was something in their TOS that stoped me from doing so.

I did try a few mini-reviews on another site (Sam something? I forget the name), but without any response (increase in readership) that I could tell.

[Sordid-1]

Exclusive, permanent 1st, 2nd, last, from here-to-infinity electronic publishing rights is too much for Epinions to ask for in exchange for the $1.25 they pay for the average review (and that's not to insinuate that they aren't OVER-PAYING for a lot of the stuff out there).

I don't understand the legalities of the situation, though I would be willing to bet that Curtis, being a lawyer, does. But in light of the fluctuating TOS, the misleading exaggeration of earnings potential the site has stated at various times and places, and the basic concept of intellectual property, I don't see either a legal or ethical problem with Curtis maintaining that HE owns his own work and not Epinions.

Sure, there are some that should be pleased as punch to get their $1.25 or less, but for guys like Curtis that is roughly equivalent to Esau trading away his birthright for a bowl of soup. What he's offering is worth far more than what he's receiving.

I have never heard of Epinions challenging anyone over the ownership of their own writing after the fact, and I'm sure it would not be worthwhile for them to do so, or, possibly, they may believe they don't have a legal leg to stand on. But mostly I think it is just not worth the hassle. There are plenty of former members who took their writing down and placed it elsewhere. Once they take their writing off the site, Epinions is not paying for it anymore, so it's not double-dipping.

Anyway, I think everybody in Brisbane should be pleased as punch that they got to rent Curtis' reviews for awhile. While it was here it raised the quality and credibility of this site. If they don't have a method or financial means to compensate guys like Curtis any more than the guys who write the 7,112th review of "Tomb Raider" exclaiming how "This is a really kewl movie! Lara Croft is hot!" then I'm sure they realize that they are going to lose the presence and writing of the Curtis Edmonds of the site. The attritition of the good writers is probably factored into an algorithm somewhere, maybe the same one that assigns Advisor hats (assuming that is not random)!

But then again, I think there is a prevalent "quantity over quality" approach pervasive on this site, so, from a business standpoint, Curtis Edmonds is just a little dribble in the proverbial bucket.

[theeye]

Originally posted by Sordid-1
Exclusive, permanent 1st, 2nd, last, from here-to-infinity electronic publishing rights is too much for Epinions to ask for in exchange for the $1.25 they pay

That may well be true. In which case, you shouldn't enter into such an agreement with them. But once you've entered into such an agreement, I don't understand how you can't justify the "but it's not fair" argument.

Originally posted by Sordid-1
I don't see either a legal or ethical problem with Curtis maintaining that HE owns his own work and not Epinions.

Of course not. The agreement always stipulated that the author maintains ownership. But Epinions is granted an exclusive right to on-line display, subject to certain limitations. That's very clear in the agreement.

I may own a house, but if I've rented it out to a tenant, subject to a lease, I'm not entitled to say "It's mine and I'll do with it as I please". I've agreed to grant the tenant certain rights. Even if I later decide that the lease was not up to market rates. Same idea.

Originally posted by Sordid-1
Sure, there are some that should be pleased as punch to get their $1.25 or less, but for guys like Curtis that is roughly equivalent to Esau trading away his birthright for a bowl of soup. What he's offering is worth far more than what he's receiving..

Yes, BUT: if he chooses to trade away his birthright for a bowl of soup, he can't change his mind after the fact. He's a smart guy; he entered into this agreement with full knowledge of what he was doing.

Originally posted by Sordid-1
Once they take their writing off the site, Epinions is not paying for it anymore, so it's not double-dipping.

No, but it's depriving Epinions of a right (exclusive on-line display rights) because you've belated decided that you made a bad deal.

Originally posted by Sordid-1
If they don't have a method or financial means to compensate guys like Curtis any more than the guys who write the 7,112th review of "Tomb Raider" exclaiming how "This is a really kewl movie! Lara Croft is hot!" then I'm sure they realize that they are going to lose the presence and writing of the Curtis Edmonds of the site

Yes, they'll lose his presence -- he'll probably decide not to write for them anymore. So, it would be good business sense for them to figure out a way to compensate him enough that he wants to continue to write for them.

But good business sense is not the same as ethical obligation. They don't owe him more than they've given him. They just may not have given him as much as would be smart to give him.

(Note: when I used the second person "you" in this post, I did not intend for it to refer to Sordid-1 or anyone in particular.)

[Sordid-1]

To the best of my knowledge though, eye, most contractual obligations don't float from here to there, near, far, wherever you are. When Curtis started floating his reviews on Epinions the base pay rate was THIRTY times what it is now, everything that was posted got paid, and income share was represented by epinions as something substantial.

So now that they have altered their end of the bargain, cut the pay rates to a pittance, made a joke of the income share, archived a number of reviews and stopped paying for them altogether, and tweaked the TOS on numerous occasions (usually without notifying the people who it affects), you still think there is a legal and ethical obligation? Once again, I'm thankfully not a lawyer, but using your landlord/tenant example - if I sign a lease for a year and three months into it the landlord alters it quadrupling the rent, mandating that I get rid of my dogs, and demanding that I spitshine his yacht every alternate Thursday, sorry my legal/ethical obligation to honor the original contract just flew out the freakin' window.

All this, "Yeah, but since you jumped into the agreement, you're obligated to eat it and smile blah blah blah" slides right off of me like water from a duck's back when it's just fine for the guy who designed the contract to flippantly dink around with it to suit his desires of the moment.

Nobody's gonna fight him for it, I'm sure, but I maintain the reviews belong to Curtis.

[theeye]

It was crystal clear from the start that they weren't guaranteeing any rate of pay. When I looked at that agreement, I said to myself, "So I'm giving them an exclusive right to on-line display of my work forever in exchange for a rate of pay that might drop precipitously at any time?" My reaction to that was, "Bad deal if I'm a professional writer and I'm really expecting to make a living out of my writing -- but I can live with it."

Plenty of contractual agreements are "forever". I pay software companies all the time for the perpetual rights to use their software (in fact, in one such case, the software company in question has let me know that they consider our deal to be "unfair" to them and they'd never negotiate such a deal today -- but, of course, they signed the agreement years ago and will live up to it).

I can understand someone looking at the situation and saying, "Gee, I can do a lot better elsewhere. I'm not going to write ONE MORE WORD for Epinions until they start compensating me appropriately." But what's done is done. You got the benefit of posting it on their web site, getting paid for it and getting your name known. That's what you bargained for. Good bargain, bad bargain -- I really don't see how that's relevant.