Epinions Advance Notice of a Write-OFF

[bonniesayers]

WOW I am impressed to get an email addressed to TR/Editors and will share the following for those not in the know. Actually I was not in the "know" of the write off they are mentioning but by the title can guess the participants.

Does this mean folks were sending emails to EP about this or it is posted someplace and EP management read it. I mean this is a Sunday that I got an email from EP.

EMAIL:

Dear Top Reviewers and Editors on Epinions,

Epinions has learned that a few members of Epinions are planning on participating in an upcoming write-off called SCADS. We believe that reviews generated by this write-off will do more harm than good for Epinions as a site that helps consumers make buying decisions. We are contacting you in advance of this write-off to encourage you to rate reviews in your category
in accordance with Epinions Rating Guidelines:

http://www.epinions.com/member/show_...ingsguidelines

Specifically, if a review in your category contains extraneous or bogus information that does not have consumers' best interest in minds it will not be helpful to consumers and should be rated low accordingly. As a Top Reviewer or Editor, you have tremendous influence on others through your ratings and reviews. We urge you to use your influence in a positive manner to help prevent this and similarly ill-intentioned write-offs from lessening
Epinions value to consumers. To be clear, Epinions encourages
write-offs that result in reviews that are helpful to consumers, but discourages ones that are not.

Potential participants in this upcoming write-off have been contacted and urged not to participate in it. We hope you will join us in continuing Epinions reputation as the best resource for helping consumers make buying decisions, and thank you for your ongoing support!

Best regards,

The Epinions.com Team
---------

It would be interesting to read the email that was sent to the potential participants.

Anyone have one they care to share?

Bonnie

Wait... a bogus write-off that I wasn't invited to participate in?

I'm crestfallen!

[rich2003dm]

I am so hurt!

I got an invitation to the write-off, but declined. Not for any "I love the Epinions TOS" reason, since I never paid much attention to it and always wrote what I felt like. I passed on the write-off due to terminal writer's block. Can't write nuthin'. Been that way for months.

But Epinions management never bothered to send me one of those nifty warning letters.

I don't write much, but it kind of hurts to think that they don't know I exist.

Am I not a rebel (kinda sorta?)?

I wrote weird stuff too, you know. But does Epinions acknowledge me with a warning?

Rich (the unknown rebel Epinionator)

[nifer]

Originally posted by bonniesayers
Actually I was not in the "know" of the write off they are mentioning but by the title can guess the participants.

To satisfy my curiosity, who do you guess those participants to be?

jennifer

[kurt_messick]

Well, I guess I don't rate.

I didn't get an email inviting me to the write-off. I didn't get an email telling me not to join.

Nobody loves me,
everybody hates me,
guess I'll go eat worms...

[phoenixx]

I have to confess ignorance of what that title would even mean, although it seems odd that epinions would send a notice to editors about the write off at all if they thought it would be negative - many would consider that a perverse form of encouragement to flaunt control by participation.....???

[shadow8]

Yeah, I got one of those letters from Eps telling me to downgrade the entries in the SCADS write-off. But what the heck is a SCADS write-off??? C'mon, I wanna know! Gimme all the juicy details! Am I the only naive one here??

[erik_kosberg]

To satisfy my curiosity, who do you guess those participants to be?

<moderator>
Ahem. Let’s not start naming names. It could get ugly really fast.
</moderator>

[JennJoy]

Although I'm no authority on it, I did see an invite to this write-off and the purpose seemed to write on-topic reviews that contained as much detail as humanly possible. To the point of being extreme. I'm thinking to show that so many people on epinions go overboard on the amount of information they include in a review. The writeoff clearly sounded tongue-in-cheek, but definitely on topic and helpful.

I find it incredibly funny that epinions is attempting to police a write-off that has the main intent of being as full of consumer information as possible.

[rich2003dm]

You're absolutely correct.

Compared to some, this one is rather benign. Seems to be all in fun and not malicious, although it would kind of tweak the "Not Helpful" TOS abiding raters a bit.

I think the folks over at Epinions got shell-shocked by EBD and Lexi and are over-reacting to this one.

Rich

[jankp]

Interesting! I got the email from Nirav, but no invite despite suggesting such a write-off to the Scadsmeister for Val's Day. I'm seeing red!

Jan

[29th_Candidate]

Originally posted by bonniesayers
WOW

It would be interesting to read the email that was sent to the potential participants.

Anyone have one they care to share?

Bonnie

Sure Bonnie, I'll post the relevant part of the original email right here in this string, as I am its author, and I suggested the W-O as a humorous, but "high road" response to smooth over some of the divisive and defensive negativity left in the wake of the "Lexiphilac W-O." The proposed W-O to which you here refer, is called:

"the 29th_Candidate's
1st Annual 'SCADS-Providers Tribute To Consumerly-Helpfulness' W-O" (It has been nicknamed "the SCADS W-O" for obvious reasons...)

The private email; one which was cut & pasted into an email by a misguided third party, was then sent by the 3rd party (whose name I omit for purposes of protecting this person from reprisal) to epinions' Alexis. She passed it on to Nirav. Nirav read my email, which was taken out of its original, light context and put into an inaccurate, dark context by a rather nasty mischaracterization written by this 3rd party and incorporated into an irresponsibly misleading preface.

Presumably, and without seeking clarification "from the horse's mouth," Nirav reached his own conclusions about the W-O, and responded by sending a copy of the third part letter, complete with the cut and paste of my letter, to yet another third party, who in turn mailed it to still another third party, who forwarded it to me.

Though I previously sent an invitation to Nirav to discuss epinions-related issues via "Ron in marketing," neither he nor Ron has has seen fit to respond to it. Nonetheless, and despite his being substantially misinformed re: the W-O, he moved forward in a slash and burn campaign to, apparently, discourage and/or punish those he perceived as being involved with the W-O; three of whom he retaliated against by knocking the "funny hats" off their heads. (Still want an invite?) As for you, file13, you're welcome to join, but I warn you as I did the other potential participants: Off-topic and/or rule-abusive posts will not be tolerated.

I will now retrieve my letter, then post the relevant part in a subsequent post, right here in this string.

Best Regards,

--29th

[29th_Candidate]

Originally posted by kurt_messick
Well, I guess I don't rate.

I didn't get an email inviting me to the write-off. I didn't get an email telling me not to join.

Nobody loves me,
everybody hates me,
guess I'll go eat worms...

[On one knee, in a courtly manner]

My dear friend Kurt, wouldst thou, in thy ever-prevalent spirit of consumerly helpfulness and scadsulent cheer, honor thee and thine by joining me in paying a harmless and humorous tribute to my ever-consumerly helpful quest to provide mega-scads of enlightening product info to consumerific buyers?

How's THAT for an invite?

--Jim

[Roxymarie]

Well it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I find this terribly amusing. On one side a band of overly helpful reviewers(I'm envisioning copious coffermaker reviews that list the dimensions of each and every screw with perhaps a lengthy history of the origin of plastic) clashing with email empowered Editors and TRs desperately perusing paragraph after paragraph looking for some iota of crud to hang their NH on. How can this not be fun?

[mshawpyle]

Well, well, well.

Site management is attempting to control content? To make the term 'Editor' mean what it would mean at, say, an actual publishing house or newspaper? (Pardon me whilst I indulge in Homeric laughter. There are a handful of people who are or were Eps members who would be competent to edit my prose, but they are few in number, and only accidentally if at all to be found in the ranks of those entitled 'editors' by the MuthaSite.) The (here's an oxymoron) 'management team' trying to influence ratings and encourage and discourage various postings and expressions?

Well, so much for the last tattered remnants of that old 'we're-a-platform-not-a-publisher' rubbish they spout whenever confronted with serious abuse (neo-Nazis, incitements to riot and genocide and murder, pedophiles).

Nice to know that in this ever-changing world, one thing remains constant: Epinions's mission statement of 'Ready! FIRE! Aim!'

They'll never learn, will they?

[29th_Candidate]

For your edification, the following is a copy of one of the letters that went out to participants. All of the letters that went out contained essentially the same description and information. I've removed any personal references to the recipient.

Please note that this was and is a private email that was misappropriated in the same way one might pass by your mailbox, sort through your private mail, find something "juicy" and then send it to a third party who had no business reading it. The feds consider it a felony. So do I. Still, it's interesting to note, that Nirav won't read or respond to email I send him directly, yet he responds most decisively to my email if it's not meant for him. Also, please note that the letter is an INVITATION to the various recipients, none of whom he provided the courtesy of asking or finding out if they even accepted it, yet at least 3 of whom he stripped of advisor hats without any further or additional information. Nice, huh? Further, please note at the end of my proposal where I've explicitly stated:

"These "rules" are currently subject to additions, modifications, subtractions, as provided by your consumerly-helpful suggestions, but that's generally the long and short of my proposed write-off."

AND...

"I look forward to your feedback &/or acknowledgments of interest or non-interest in participating in my W-O. We plan on posting Ground-Grunt's Day Weekend."

Now decide for yourself whether Nirav was perhaps more than just "a little trigger-happy" when he punished Pam (pogomom) Mike, (Deaser) and Kris Kochanski by unilaterally axing their respective "editor/top reviewer" statuses, all because I decided to send them an invite.

As it turned out, Kris wrote me to tell me she couldn't participate b/c she's moving from San Fran to LA next weekend, and Mike Deaser declined the invite for personal reasons... If Nirav had asked either them or me, I would have been happy to provide him with the information. Why depend on unreliable, illicit, third party info, when he's entirely welcome to reliable, "unstolen" 1st hand information? He knows I'd like to speak to him. Hell, he's mah consumer-in-chief!

Here is the letter:

"Hi XXXXXX,

Jim --29th here...

I want you to join my write off. It is described in detail below. Before you accept, please note-- the object of this W-O is to follow the EP TOS to the letter. The idea is to humorously provide SCADS and SCADS of Consumerly Helpful product info. Above all, your review must remain meticulously on-topic. Hope you'll accept my invite...

Mirthfully,

--Jim

the 29th_Candidate's
1st Annual "SCADS-Providers Tribute To Consumerly-Helpfulness" W-O

This will be a write-off wherein participants "kill with scads of consumerly-helpful kindness." "How does one 'kill with scads of consumerly-helpful kindness?'" you ask. Well, as I see it, there are a few ways NIRAV's consumerly-helpful little-helper bees accomplish this most worthy of tasks:

1. They (quoting Nirav's now-famous inspirational quote) "provide SCADS & SCADS & SCADS of useful product info calculated to help the consumer make better buying decisions."

2. Another way we Nirry-warts provide consumerly-helpful reviews is by making them CLEAR and EASY to read. I'm forced to assume this means for 2-year old consumers seeking helpful product info, as well:

a) One perhaps might title and subtitle every little paragraph with obnoxious redundancy, or one might, b) annoyingly over-explain and over-define product-related terms, yet forget or innocently c) neglect to define the many d) unnecessarily-provided technical terms or legalese related to the product you've thoughtfully included in your review. They also provide e) helpful descriptions of their real-life experiences with the product, to help illustrate their take on the prod's useful or helpful aspects, or one might find a f) previously-unused, creative way to put their review on the very cutting edge of consumerly-helpfulness.

3. Helpful product-reviewers provide "SCADS;" --literally. They use the word "SCAD" in as many
imaginatively-sensible ways or SCADSnificent variations and SCADisfactory forms as their
consumerly helpful imagination allows.

4. Helpful product-reviewers assist SCADvisors in rendering their VH-assessments by stating, somewhere in the review, their fearless leader and consumer-in-chief's mission statement meant to
guide EP's mindless, unpaid grunts to previously unimaginable heights of consumerly-helpfulness, and which I herewith include for purely decorative purposes, since we have all already adopted it as a sacrosant and inviolable part of our personal creedos and daily prayers: "The consumerly helpful product review is one that provides SCADS of useful product info,calculated to help the consumer make better buying decisions." ...Brings a tear to me eye just to type it... :::sniffle:::

5. (Optional) The REAL consumerly helpfulness-addled product-review biznagas & playas, include a
little tribute to their fearless consumer-in-chief, to acknowledge their gratefulness for Nirry's allowing them to provide him & EPs with their consumerly-helpful product-reviews.

These "rules" are currently subject to additions, modifications, subtractions, as provided by your
consumerly-helpful suggestions, but that's generally the long and short of my proposed write-off.

I look forward to your feedback &/or acknowledgments of interest or non-interest in participating in my W-O. We plan on posting Ground-Grunt's Day Weekend.

Thanks In Advance & Have A Consumerific Day!

Scadsnifferously Yours--

--29th"

[amykhar]

I would hope that each editor, actually each member, rates the reviews based on their merits and not on a) the popularity/power of the writer or b) slamming the write-off in general.

That said, I have to state that my interpretation of the purpose of the write off is to poke fun at some overly detailed authors who tend to be disliked by certain groups.

The problem with that is that Epinions is losing credibility now because satirical reviews and other reviews that are not truly written for consumers are rising to the top due to the bad rating practices of some editors.

Why does this bother me? It bothers me because we are playing with people's jobs now. If Epinions can't draw in partners and sponsors because editors are rating up bogus reviews written by witty people, Epinions WILL fold.

Is it worth making 30+ people lose their jobs because we don't like a few writers? Is poking fun at an editor/top reviewer or two really worth it? Is picking on Nirav worth that?

I am willing to keep an open mind on these reviews, and rate each one on its merit. However, I hope that the reviews are written to inform and not to mock and scorn.

Would the writers rather that I provide them with a platform to post these reviews in the form of a writing contest? That can be arranged. Then, you all would have a place to make your statement or have your creative fun where we can all enjoy it without having to worry about ratings or editorial "duties".

Amy

Originally posted by bonniesayers
WOW I am impressed to get an email addressed to TR/Editors and will share the following for those not in the know.
Bonnie

Bonnie,

Impressed?

If anything, you should be pissed. Once again, instead of doing what they think is right for their business, whoever - because I can't say if it's Nirav - are being weenies.

I'm not here to say what's right for their business, but here's what I'm saying...If you have people that continue to contribute content that you find inappropriate, TAKE CARE OF IT. Don't rely on volunteers to do your job. Get some balls. Take care of things. Warn people once. Second time, delete their account. It's not rocket science.

As it is now, epinions is continuing the cycle of pitting members against each other.

Let's see:
Illiterate
Floopy
Christmas Suicide
EBD
Lexi
SCADS

How many more write off's will epinions take before they start acting like a business?

[jankp]

Guess the big guns don't have much of a sense of humor anymore...if they ever really did. Looks like a write-off that will help keep some interest and community spirit on the site, which is sorely needed with the many departures of good writers that doesn't stop. This attempt to let off steam and build spirit should be encouraged, especially since the reviews will be on-topic!

WTG, Jim...

Jan

[mshawpyle]

Originally posted by amykhar
The problem with that is that Epinions is losing credibility now because satirical reviews and other reviews that are not truly written for consumers are rising to the top due to the bad rating practices of some editors.

Why does this bother me? It bothers me because we are playing with people's jobs now. If Epinions can't draw in partners and sponsors because editors are rating up bogus reviews written by witty people, Epinions WILL fold.

If its business model is that poorly thought-out and its management too clueless to take ameliorative action, then the logic of the free marketplace dictates that they deserve to fold. Their metaphorical blood wouldn't be on my hands, or yours, or anyone's who is here. Perhaps on the 'Invisible Hand' posited by Adam Smith, but more likely on their own, as having committed corporate suicide.

And when, in quite some time, has a site the greater portion of the content of which is semiliterate drivel had any credibility to lose?

Originally posted by amykhar
The problem with that is that Epinions is losing credibility now because satirical reviews and other reviews that are not truly written for consumers are rising to the top due to the bad rating practices of some editors.

Why does this bother me? It bothers me because we are playing with people's jobs now. If Epinions can't draw in partners and sponsors because editors are rating up bogus reviews written by witty people, Epinions WILL fold.

Is it worth making 30+ people lose their jobs because we don't like a few writers? Is poking fun at an editor/top reviewer or two really worth it? Is picking on Nirav worth that?

Amy

Amy,

This is easy to solve:
1) The management team at epinions must take a stand. A stand does not mean sending out an email to TR/Editors.

2) People who do not adhere to their rules should be warned once, deleted the next time.

This is not to Amy directly - EVERYONE

I am so tired of it looking like *WE*, the contributors, are the reason for the downfall of epinions. Leave kids loose in a candy store without supervision, don't expect surprises, know what I mean? Yes yes, we're all adults (blah blah blah on that argument), but all societies have an organized form of policing that involved CREDIBILITY and VISIBILITY. Right now, editors have visibility but no credibility. Yes, it's partly the selection criteria but the bigger issue is that there is absolutely NO VISIBLE SUPPORT from the epinions management team - that is - in public forums.

Editors that have received this email are pretty much ticked off. Why? Because once again, they are being asked to do something that they will receive NO backing on. When they get blocked to kingdom come, they will fall off the eligibility list to become an editor or TR again. Why would ANYONE want to set themselves up for this kind of "failure"?

I don't want anyone to lose their job. I'm really sad to hear that my participation in the Lexi write off contributed to the loss of an advertiser. I can't even tell you how incredibly sad that makes me. It's made me re-think my contributions to the site, both in an editor and a TR way.

[amykhar]

MSP,
I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. All I am saying is that doing something to intentionally hasten the process isn't fair to the employees of the site.

Amy

[bonniesayers]

Actually What I meant was that I was impressed to receive an email on a Sunday as I thought no one was there on weekends.

Also what I was referring to was I was curious to see what sort of email Nirav sent to those as a warning, or however he phrased it in the email to TR/Editors.

But thanks Jim for posting your email and so now if I understand correctly someone who received the original email from you sent it on to EP and in that email was the addresses of the other invitees.

That is some long chain of events.

Sorry for any confusion my first post might of caused to those reading it.

Bonnie