The SCADS write-off -- what's all the hullabaloo?

[wivabef]

I have begun to read the SCADS write off entries.

In poking fun at the founding Scadilators at the mommy site, the few I have read (and have had time to read -- though enjoyable, they are definitely epic in length) have actually proved to be highly informative AND highly amusing. Overly so in both cases.

Granted, I have only read four -- I clicked on Sordid's and decided I needed to drug the kids to sleep in order to afford it the utmost attention it probably deserves -- but I feel I can safely come to this conclusion regarding SCADS, Lexiphiliac and non-tongue-in-cheek hyperinfo reviews:

* It is possible to be highly informative and highly amusing.
* Highly informative without being highly amusing is deeply dull.
* I still feel strongly that highly amusing without providing any pertinent (important word choice) information is not a consumer review, hence NH.

The preSCAD scandal assumed that the first conclusion was not the intention of the participants. How embarrassingly wrong our fearless CEO was.

[Prepoia[$]]

How embarrassingly wrong our fearless CEO was.


Perhaps, or perhaps his vigilance and intervention prevented the original intent.


Sandy

[Sordid-1]

Prepoia:
Perhaps, or perhaps his vigilance and intervention prevented the original intent.

Actually, Prepoia, I think his prejudgment and preemptive flailing, err, excuse me… “vigilance and intervention” DID have an effect on the pieces, but not of the sort that you are inferring. I know my review took a whole different turn as the result of the way the situation was handled. I like *some* of the way the post-edit/delete fiasco Eeps management’s thinking has progressed. I particularly like what seems like a wide-spread discussion of Epinions related manners with many different users. I think that’s a great step forward. It can only serve to give them a better understanding of our concerns and maybe even steer them in the direction of some positive, meaningful change. However, the “we don’t trust you editors to rate these pieces ‘correctly’ //// we are certain these scumbags are up to no good” mass-mailings, and the subsequent “sharing” of private e-mail was quite a step backwards. My piece reflected those sentiments. It would have been quite innocuous otherwise.

[James23]

...with Ken. The pre W/O hype by our fearless leader here and elsewhere did have an effect on my entry too, and also not in the way I believe he wanted.

Instead of a slightly off beat humerous review of my new cell phone with maybe an extra 500-600 words of useless trivia and facts thrown in I changed it to the one I did post. That one has a whopping 5,800 plus words of some of the most useless trivia and details one could ever need, and actually ommits several important things, but all within both the TOS of Eeeps and those laid down for the W/O.

[conradd]

Originally posted by James23
[BInstead of a slightly off beat humerous review of my new cell phone with maybe an extra 500-600 words of useless trivia and facts thrown in I changed it to the one I did post. That one has a whopping 5,800 plus words of some of the most useless trivia and details one could ever need, and actually ommits several important things, but all within both the TOS of Eeeps and those laid down for the W/O. [/b]

Congratulations. You sound very proud of yourself.

Deb
still wondering why

[jkkelley]

Originally posted by Sordid-1

However, the “we don’t trust you editors to rate these pieces ‘correctly’ //// we are certain these scumbags are up to no good” mass-mailings, and the subsequent “sharing” of private e-mail was quite a step backwards. My piece reflected those sentiments. It would have been quite innocuous otherwise.

Same is true for me. Want my honest sentiment? Having not only made the decision to be sure and rate entries fairly by critical standards (which I have gone ahead and done only because I gave my word on that, and have done the unspeakable: given SH and NH to fellow writeroffers), I was also going to rearrange my review so that the extraneous, only-of-interest-to-Epinions people stuff was all at the bottom. It would be a pain in the butt, but it would also help Epinions a little.

Then that mail hit my box, and I said, 'lófasz a seggedbe*, it goes as I have it.' And so it did.

I'm not sure how many times I have to say it: Epinions' primary problem with its contributors is a remarkably lousy sense of PR. What was so impossible, if they were truly concerned, about sending out a mail (if they really felt they must) of this nature:

==

"Dear Epinions Contributor,

"We understand that there's a writeoff in the works that's going to have a little fun with the concept of overly detailed reviews. No problem; some of them bore us too, and often shorter reviews are more helpful to consumers, thus we also would like to encourage them.

"As you know, we are in a tough market right now, and as you may not know, the Lexiphiliac writeoff hurt us pretty badly. We're therefore a little nervous. We'd like to ask a favour of you: if you're in the writeoff, before you post your entry, please look very hard at it and make sure that it's not so off-the-wall (especially in terms of off-colour material) that it's going to seriously hurt us.

"While we reserve the right to delete any material we need to, we won't do that except in the most extreme cases. However, please understand that it remains an option, because it has to. If we have to choose between closing down the company and deleting a couple of grotesque reviews, we'll delete the reviews and lose no sleep. We don't anticipate ever having to do this, and you can help us a lot by steering clear of anything too extremely raunchy.

"We look forward to the writeoff entries. We know that your group is creative enough to combine actual, valuable reviews with a little bit of satire, so while it's not precisely what we'd always want to see, it's a huge step forward. We take it in that spirit.

"Thanks, in advance, for helping us."

==

That took me fifteen minutes. If a mail had to be sent, why not make it an effective one? If you received a mail like this, frank and honest but assuming the best of you rather than the worst, might you not check over your upcoming draft and try to do them as much good as you reasonably could while remaining true to your own creativity?

Sure, it admits their primary vulnerability aloud. As if, after EBD and Lexi, there's anyone out there paying attention to it all who is too stupid to have figured it out. (I think that even the two stupidest people I know of on Epinions have probably done so, and that's really saying something.)

Jesus H. Christ.

jkk

*Magyar: politely stated, "I recommend that you serve as the receptive partner, in a manner possible for either gender, in an act of Gomorrhic intimacy with an equine creature."

[vania]

Again, it all comes down to those two nasty little concepts called "trust" and "respect."

A mail like the one you dreamt up, jkk, would indicate that trust and respect are real between Epinions managementa and certain Epinions writers.

The mail that was sent out instead, however, unfortunately indicates quite the opposite.

v.

[suzer]

So far I have read/rated four SCADS reviews that I
happened to run into, and if memory serves me, all I
rated Very Helpful. Perhaps I lucked out, and read
some really good ones. I tend to be rather wordy
(duh), so maybe it seemed normal to me.

I think management was concerned about the w/o
being very negative toward them and the site, and
that wouldn't have helped anyone.



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

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by James23
That one has a whopping 5,800 plus words of some of the most useless trivia and details one could ever need, and actually ommits several important things, but all within both the TOS of Eeeps and those laid down for the W/O.

I never could get the hang of leaving out important things from my reviews, which is probably why I eventually gave up on writing at Epinions.

-JP

[James23]

Originally posted by conradd


Congratulations. You sound very proud of yourself.

Deb
still wondering why

Actually I am Deb, and thanks so much for asking.

James

[rich2003dm]

Originally posted by drmomentum


I never could get the hang of leaving out important things from my reviews, which is probably why I eventually gave up on writing at Epinions.

-JP

Out of my 46 reviews, I don't believe I ever included a single important thing.

How pathetic is that?

Rich

[29th_Candidate]

Elyzabeth--

I am very uplifted by your uncommon generosity in initiating this string to write such a positive review of the SCADS Write-Off.

[Kneeling down with head bowed and arms extended over head in "I am not worthy" gesture]

Your warm words generate more positive feelings and good will than I can express. Suffice it to say, they are a comparative swimming pool full of snakebite anti-toxin applied to the lingering, poison that had been preventing the festering, "anti-SCADS letter campaign" snakebite wounds from closing up and properly healing. Thank you very much for your thoughtfulness.

Originally posted by Prepoia
How embarrassingly wrong our fearless CEO was.

Perhaps, or perhaps his vigilance and intervention prevented the original intent.


Sandy

Sandy,

I suppose I can't blame you for your skepticism. I've discovered during trials, what a truly daunting task it is to "unpredjudice" a jury after opposing counsel has effectively constructed a convincing, but inaccurate first impression by feeding that jury just enough facts to allow it to reach its own logical, though nevertheless false conclusions regarding the point at issue.

Staying with the "swimming pool" analogy motif; it (i.e., repairing a false 1st impression) is about as simple and reliable as removing urine from an improperly used swimming pool armed with only a butterfly net. You can only guess; never actually "see," what impression has polluted the jurors' perception pool. Consequently, you can only guess as to what you must address in order to minimize the taint. (You can never completely remove it.)


The seemier and more lurid (i.e., the higher the "National Enquirer" value) the "dish;" the more indellible the taint, and inevitably, the more resistant it is to subsequent rehabilitation attempts. In this case, the initial impression was left with an El Marko™.

Having read Sordid's and Jonathan's corroborative posts, I don't doubt they experienced at least a part of the frustrated dismay I experienced. Two plus weeks of non-stop, on-site and off-site accusations and recriminations rendered me far less altruistic and "high road"-oriented than I had originally been at the onset of my lofty, if amusement-seeking, W-O inspiration. I wrote three different versions (using three different products) of my SCADS submission, before turning in the one I eventually submitted. I had to start over from scratch each time, because my frustrated anger kept insideously manifesting itself in destructive, "product review attacks" that, while I was writing them, didn't seem as belligerent as when I read back the final rough drafts.

Finally, an email I received from aggiebrett, jokingly accusing me of leaving his and the other participants' "asses hanging out in the wind," made me realize I could end up sabotaging the constructive intent/point of the write-off, thereby demonstrating that Nirav's fears and actions had been right all along, unless I abandoned my righteous indignation-based obsession to show he had been WRONG all along. The only way I could bring myself to do this, was by humorously pretending that Nirav's fears and actions had been right all along. :boxed:

Ultimately, though I'm satisfied with my review taken as a piece of writing, I'm disappointed by its (though not necessarily the W-O's) failure to put an exclamation point at the end of the message I was attempting to use the W-O and my W-O entry to communicate.

Cheers--

Jim

[aggiebrett]

Originally posted by 29th_Candidate

Finally, an email I received from aggiebrett, jokingly accusing me of leaving his and the other participants' "asses hanging out in the wind"....

"Jokingly"? Hey— there was a breeze and my pants were down. T'weren't no joke, counselor.

At least, none that I was trying to make.

I think the SCADS write-off served at least two very useful functions:

1) It demonstrated pretty clearly (IMHO) that there *ARE* a number of "respected/respectable" Pinheads who are incapable of reading and rating in a truly objective manner without rating the REVIEWER as much as (or more than) the actual REVIEW, instead falling back upon a close-minded self-congratulatory attitude of "*I* know the one TRUE form and STYLE that a review is SUPPOSED to take, and only *MY* interpretation of what constitutes 'useful' is acceptable or relevant."

-and-

2) it seems to have prompted some semi-thoughtful debate about the underlying issues that prompted the SCADS write-off, debate which strke me as far more interesting than roughly 95% of the reviews posted on this site

Given the fact that there seems decreasing reason to waste time posting actual consumer reviews on Epinions, the notion of discussing and debating "Epinions.com" itself seems far more interesting to me. Exercises like the SCADS w/o provide interesting grist for the mill, serving much like a seismic test in geology: make a big noise and then try to interpret the ensuing echos and silences.

My guess is that Epinions, Inc. would prefer that we not pay quite so much mind to the little men behind the curtain in Brisbane, but instead keep our attention focused squarely on the great and powerful OZ of Consumer Helpfulness, or, even better, on sniping at one another rather than demanding honest answers from our would-be employers. In that sense, I think Scileppi and others of his "ilk" are actually much-appreciated by Epinions, since they serve as convenient straw men for the ire of the "faithful." So long as Scileppi, Sordid, et al can be effectively marginalized by management as merely fringe elements and rabblerousers, the cows of the site will remain content to line up for their daily milking.

I mean, IMHO.
.
.
.
B

[Prepoia[$]]

Staying with the "swimming pool" analogy motif; it (i.e., repairing a false 1st impression) is about as simple and reliable as removing urine from an improperly used swimming pool armed with only a butterfly net. You can only guess; never actually "see," what impression has polluted the jurors' perception pool. Consequently, you can only guess as to what you must address in order to minimize the taint. (You can never completely remove it.)


Actually, Counselor, the piss in my swimming pool was reading a copy of the originators' email sent to enlist other's participation. But, I definitely will admit to ignorance of the purpose, once again, of this particular write off. The reply just before this post, by aggiebrett explained some of the intent but sounded somewhat different then my interpretation of the email I read. Of course interpretation can be biased also, so your point would be valid except I am not an employee of epinions. I just write product reviews and usually stay far away from controversies because I'm more neutral in my site angst.

I admire honest protest to improve the conditions for all (in all of life's areas) but tend to ignore personal agendas. We all have those, no biggie there.

If I rate a scads review that is well done, it gets a VH; if it's not well done, it will get less. Just like any other review I read. Will I search to find them? No. But, if those who participated needed to make their point, that's ok with me. We should all feel free to express ourselves. But, I don't own the playground so I usually try to make sure that when I play there I follow the general playground rules and are looking for others that do too.
But, on a playground I can walk away if I don't like the game; on epinions I have the right to do the same thing.

Sandy

Who really never has said, "Moo" in her life lol

[aggiebrett]

Originally posted by Prepoia
If I rate a scads review that is well done, it gets a VH; if it's not well done, it will get less. Just like any other review I read.

Which is exactly how it SHOULD be, and how I wish it had been with the SCADS write-off, but, as has been mentioned before (here and elsewhere), that's NOT what happened, at least, not to my way of thinking.

But, on a playground I can walk away if I don't like the game; on epinions I have the right to do the same thing.

True enough, but is it wrong for students on this playground even to question any of the ever-changing rules on this playground? Does everyone on the playground have to use every piece of equipment exactly as and ONLY as some select self-annointed Honor Guard have decided things are to be used? Should you HAVE to walk away rather than endure organized group abuse from other students? Abuse which would normally result in suspension but which in this specific case was actually ordered and supported by the school principal?


Who really never has said, "Moo" in her life lol

Hey, there's nothing wrong with cows, but it's simply not realistic to demand that ALL the critters in the barnyard behave like good old Bessie.
.
.
.
analogiholic B

[29th_Candidate]

Originally posted by Prepoia
"Actually, Counselor, the piss in my swimming pool was reading a copy of the originators' email sent to enlist other's participation..."

So stipulated, Prepoia; but my pee-dominant point wasn't that the urine-flammatory, pissed-off empty-bladdering or the waste-byproductive wording of the pee-prose-al composting the written incontinents of my privates' email wasn't (SCADologically and anal-logically speaking) a piss-poor "e-piss-al;" it wiz. My pithy point was that your piss-scovery of that pee in your swimming pool, was not an incontinence of my "pee-ing" it there, but bladder a urea-sult of some "looking-out-for-#1," yellow journalism-spreading piss-pirate's piss-appropriation and potty-pillaging of my privates' plumbing, then transferring the void-tabloid; the tinkling tell-all treasures of his toilet bowl gold-mining expedition, to the Epins sewage treatment facility for further processing.

There, the piss-management unwizzly and incontinently pisseminated it to all sitewide swimming pools, instead of back to the cesspool, where it should have stayed. What had been pre-voided would not have been tabloided, therefore would have been a-voided by the eping public. Needless to say, a piss-terical wizz-hunt was inevitable. Since I believe that the email's incontinents would have completely a-voided polluting the epublic's pools had it not been for the unsolicited 3rd partys' intervention and hap-hazardous waste management, I group it together with the EP Customer Care mass (as in massacre) e-mailings.

If I rate a scads review that is well done, it gets a VH; if it's not well done, it will get less. Just like any other review I read. Will I search to find them? No. But, if those who participated needed to make their point, that's ok with me. We should all feel free to express ourselves.

Who could reasonably ask for more?

But, I don't own the playground so I usually try to make sure that when I play there I follow the general playground rules and are looking for others that do too. But, on a playground I can walk away if I don't like the game; on epinions I have the right to do the same thing.

Agreed Sandy, "...following the general playground rules and looking for others that do too," was the general gist of the W-O.

Thanks For The Shared Thoughts--

--jim

[mnehr]

My overall opinion of the majority of SCADS can be summed up in the following quotes:

Men who achieve greatness do not work more complexly than the average man, but more simply …. In dealing with complex problems, with the simplicity natural to him he went directly to the point, unaffected by the confusion of details in which a smaller man would have lost himself.
-- The Mayo brothers, writing about Dr. William Gorgas, the physician responsible for ending yellow fever in Cuba and Panama.]

Put it before them briefly so they will read it, clearly so they will appreciate it, picturesquely so they will remember it and, above all, accurately so they will be guided by its light.
Joseph Pulitzer


..and my overall favorite..


Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.
William Strunk, Jr.
The Elements of Style

[wivabef]

Originally posted by mnehr


Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.
William Strunk, Jr.
The Elements of Style

Wouldn't you say there is an "unnecessary" redundancy of the word "unnecessary"?



Elyzabeth
Who thinks the word "unnecessary" is VERY subjective.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

What I'm about to say has nothing to do with the SCADS write-off (I only read one entry, and I liked it, and other than that have no opinion on the write-off one way or the other), but I've been itching to argue this point, and you've given me a golden opportunity :

Originally posted by mnehr

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.
William Strunk, Jr.
The Elements of Style

I used to worship at the altar of Strunk & White. For many, many years I bowed down at their feet. But recently I've started to reconsider, to think that the "plain & simple" style is just a style, not the one-and-only style.

Why did we start to think that less must always necessarily be better than more?

I blame it on Hemingway.

What's wrong with a drawing with "unnecessary lines"? Or think about architecture -- that's where it's really easy to see -- which is more beautiful, a skyscraper built in the 1930s, decorated with ornate flourishes that have no purpose, or a form-follows-function bland box from the 1970s?

Maybe the same could be true for writing. Were writers of the 19th century wrong to write ornately? Or is it just that the style has temporarily changed, the way styles do in clothing, with red being in one year and black being in the next.

That said -- and here I'll provide my own counter-arguments, just in case no one picks up on this post -- it's true that given a choice I'm more likely to read something that's written simply rather than something more complex. And an ornate style can also be used as a diversion to distract from a multitude of writing sins, including the writer's not having anything substantial to say.

But aside from that, is it really so critical that everything be "necessary"? Is there nothing more important than being "concise?"

I don't have an answer here -- it's just something I've been mulling over recently. Besides, it's fun to take pot shots at Strunk & White, if for no other reason than because it seems no one ever does ...

Editing to add ... I have to take back that last sentence, because I looked at the thread after posting this and saw that Elyzabeth had just proven me wrong.

[mnehr]

I used to worship at the altar of Strunk & White. For many, many years I bowed down at their feet. But recently I've started to reconsider, to think that the "plain & simple" style is just a style, not the one-and-only style.

Why did we start to think that less must always necessarily be better than more?

In my personal opinion, many people interpret the concepts that Strunk and others have preached as a ‘theology of less’ when it comes to writing. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with ‘less is more’ but in having to skill to efficiently verbalize your message.

In my opinion, this does not mean that the ornate must be sacrificed for the ‘god of less’. I believe what we face with many reviews, not just with the SCADS, is that the ornate has become the structure, sacrificing the necessary framework of the intended message. The ornate should be, as is in architecture, an enhancement of the structure.

Think about things you have read where every word sticks with you versus those readings that leave only impressions.

We have to remember that Epinions is not a court of law where our words are meant to manipulate a jury or set a binding contract, nor is Epinions an artists’ commune where words are there to paint glorious pictures of Strawberry Fields. Epinions is a site created to communicate ideas on tangible products or services to an audience who, as a majority, come for a specific type of information. It is important, no, vital, that a writer always consider the audience in which their communication is intended.

With out considering the audience, the preset structure, the product, or the end message, it is, to paraphrase Shakespeare; ‘..full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..’

The question becomes, what kind of message do you want to leave your audience about you or the subject at hand?