An Editor a Day Keeps the Profits Away...

[Sordid-1]

This was initially brought up in another thread, but I'm veering off on a sideroad here.

Hadassahchana:
Ken, I agree completely. My rating habits didn't change from when I was not an editor until now. This is why I have no intention of cashing out until I can do so from IS alone . I always thought that reading and rating were to be done for the fun of it, and I don't think that there ought to be any sort of compensation for doing so.

Absolutely, I've tried to look at it from Epinions viewpoint, too, and it just doesn't make sense.

Here you have a precariously positioned company that, by all accounts, is much more familiar with red than black, struggling for profitability, and they decide to pay a select<*1> group of people to do something they already did for free anyway. Does that make sense?

And, from the numbers I have seen, it appears that the "editors" are paid more than the "writers." It is baffling why:

1) This company would want to squander whatever resources they have paying certain individuals to do what they do for free anyway.

2) This company would consider it more important to compensate those who LOOK at the product at a higher level than those who CREATE the product.

3) This company would have this emphasis ("editors" - who don't even edit - are more important than "writers", yet would take such little care to get quality-conscious individuals in the "editor" positions.

Sooner or later, "editor" pay is going to go. A company with a minimal revenue stream CAN NOT afford to pump out money on something that utterly useless - when the well has about run dry, that will likely be the first thing to go. Why not end it now? That would cut expenses with no tangible loss of services.

IF the "editor" system were trashed, would:

1) Everyone stop reading and rating?

2) Everyone loosen their standards in some way that would threaten the integrity of product "sort orders"?

3) All the current editors leave in a huff, crying and whining all the way to WrittenbyMe<*2> over their lost income that they worked so hard to earn?

I'd like personal input on this, especially from the 'blue buttons'. What would you do if the system was dissolved? Would it alter your behavior? Would you leave?

I don't think any of these things would happen. I imagine there would be some grumbling. I suppose there would be a slew of angry editorials <*3>. I suppose a small handful of extra click-happy "editors" would decrease their site involvement. But the bottom line is, things would continue in a "business as usual" fashion and Epinions would have eliminated a wasteful expense.

Bottom line: The editor system is a joke. The editor system sucks credibility out of the site <*4>. The editor system adds no value to the site<*5>. The editor system causes division and factionalization <*6>. It is wasteful <*7>. The editor system drains this company's coffers. The editor system sucks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*1 - Calling the editors a "select group of individuals" was my attempt at humor. Some will appreciate it.

*2 - Envisioning an exodus to WBM was another attempt at humor, I don’t think WBM is looking for new writers at this or any futurte point in time.

*3 - Every time new "editor" selections are made, it already inspires a slew of angry editorials. Heck, this time some even jumped the gun - "Epinions won't give me a Media hat! Waaaaah waaaaah waaaah! Life is so unfair! Woe is me!"

*4 - Some of the "editors" have a merely pedestrian acquaintance with the English language. When THOSE are the ones telling everyone else (even superior writers) how to "write good", what can you but laugh? Or at least mock an ill-conceived and severely flawed system.

*5 – Can anyone make a case for the “value” that “editors” add to the site? No, not of the “oh, but we really work hard” sort, more of the “our efforts as ‘editors’ cause this company to make more money” sort. I’d be really impressed with anyone who could make a compelling case based on that faulty premise.

*6 – Yeah, but YOU cause factionalization and division, too, Sordid. True, but I don’t cost Epinions money in the process of doing so.

*7 – Many see “rewarding” loyal members as something that is NOT wasteful. To that I say there are OTHER ways of rewarding loyal members that does not cause Epinions to squander its cash. And, face it, it is a reward going to individuals who do exactly what they did for free, and if everyone of them dropped off the face of the web, there is still a huge pool of currently uncompensated individuals who actively do the exact same thing as “editors”.

Blech.

I’d like to see anyone who can defend the “editor” system as something that adds value to the site and justifies the expenditures. “Yeah, but I really like the extra $20 a month” does not qualify as a solid defense, by the way.

More importantly, though: Happy birthday, Cindy.

Blue Button Stepping Forward

After much pondering of the question (would my behavior be any different if they got rid of editors/editor bonus), my answer would be yes.

Now, I'll stand back while I'm made fun of .

No, I would not leave the site. Nor would I pitch a piss and moan fest. Instead, I would concentrate most of my efforts on writing, not reading. Sure, I would still read the people who I really really LOVE to read, I just wouldn't go out of my way as much to read new people.

[amykhar]

The editor bonus was created to entice raters to rate according to the Epinions guidelines instead of rating for popularity. It is there to help compensate for some of the abuse that raters can get from cliques. Thus, I do think it makes sense at a time when there are no shortage of writers who are writing reviews that are useless to consumers.

Amy

[mtbat]

I could care less about editors getting more money, with the exception to the editors who barely participate on the site but still get to keep their blue buttons. There are editors who rarely rate, but still are listed as editors-why? that hardly seems fair to the editors who are doing their best to rate regularly and fairly.

Fridai

[quasar]

Interesting questions Ken. I do think there is value to an editor system if (and that's a big if) the people involved are chosen correctly.

As you point out, epinions' product is reviews. There are many reviews on many topics of varying quality and varying accuracy. There is much benefit to making sure that people with money (and the people those people target) see a quality product.

I'll use an example. Handspring is a big advertiser at epinions. Many (not all) of their products are in the database. When the time comes for that contract to be renewed it behooves Epinions to make sure that the Handspring representative isn't faced with a neverending series of reviews that misrepresent their products or a series of reviews that don't really talk about their products. Epinions wants Handspring to be impressed that people wrote quality reviews of their products that really help people understand what their products have to offer. If that happens, chances are they'll get a contract renewal and thus more money.

However, Handspring products are known as fairly well paying products so many people clamor to write about them. Some portion of those people don't know much about their devices. Some portion don't own them and are trying to game the system. Some portion make an honest attempt to provide helpful information but go off into directions that aren't particularly helpful or don't know enough about the products to write accurately. Some portion actually write helpful reviews. Epinions needs to make sure that the last group are the ones that Handspring sees when they look at the site.

That goal can only be acheived by ratings honestly based on helpfulness and accuracy. It can only be acheived if off-topic reviews are not seen by the public. It can only be acheived if very poorly written inaccurate reviews are not seen by the public. Now everyone, editor or no, has a say in whether that happens. There are many people with very large WOT who have more rating power than some editors, but, that aside, there is merit in the idea that people who have shown they know their subject matter well have a stronger effect on the rankings. Let's face it, most members read at least some reviews in areas they aren't experts in. I know I do. I may read a treadmill review and think it very helpful because it sounds good and it seems to cover things that would interest people looking for a treadmill. But in reality it may be completely wrong. I wouldn't know that but Mr. Exercise guru would. He should come in and NH that review and it should bury the review so that review isn't misleading people like me.

But - and this is a big but - the whole system hinges on editors really being subject matter experts (to use a term I hate but is very popular where I work). If the editors are just fellow "it sounded good to me" people then there is no advantage to having them. So here's the problem. Right now editors are not chosen for their expertise, per se, but for their interest. It is more likely that someone interested in Macs would be an expert, or at least more knowledgable than Joe Schmoe random rater, but it certainly isn't guaranteed that they are.

There really isn't any way to determine expertise rather than interest while retaining an automated system. Any system using formulas that plug in the number of reviews written, the number rated, the number of comments left, the percentage of VH-H-SH-NH ratings, or whatever other quantitative data they use is going to be, for the most part, a measure of interest. Human intervention by people who also understand the subject matter is needed to ascertain actual expertise.

So, as it stands I agree there are flaws in the editor system. I do think the concept of editors is one that's important to the financial success of the site but the system of selecting editors in place today is flawed. Both editors and top reviewers need to be selected for quality and expertise not frequency of posting/rating. If properly selected, I think these positions help put the best face forward to attract and keep both partners and consumers.

As for compensation, I think there are two ways to look at it:

1) These folks perform the same tasks as everyone else and therefore should get the same pay

2) These folks are making sure that Epinions puts its best foot forward and help in the efforts to gather and retain revenue streams and should be rewarded for that

Let's look at each viewpoint. I think both have some validity.

1) Everyone's doing the same basic thing, let's pay everyone equally

Everyone here writes reviews. Everyone here rates reviews. Everyone here comments on reviews. Those are the three main functions of members at Epinions. Why should some people get paid for these activities and others not get paid? Especially if those people are going to continue writing, reading, and rating without the compensation (although now that they've had the compensation it remains to be seen how many would continue without it).

Okay, maybe we're all performing the same actions, but are we doing them equally well? If someone who's been writing detailed white papers comparing the features of automobiles for 20 years decided to rate all of the car reviews chances are he or she would know which car reviews are helpful and which aren't.

In real life, pay isn't entirely equitable for everyone performing the same basic job. People with the same exact job title do not always perform exactly the same work and don't generally get paid exactly the same amount. I know in my department everyone has the same job title but we work on different projects that require different levels of technical ability and different skill sets. We don't get paid all get paid the same. We do all do the same basic job - we write documentation - but we some of us take screen shots and write about them while others have to understand how to build applications with our product or have other more specialized skills.

I concede every one at Epinions writes reviews, rates reviews, and comments on reviews. We all have the same basic job description. But that doesn't automatically mean we all do the job equally well or that we all deserve the same pay for what we do.

Which leads me to 2) Editors help attract and keep revenue and should share in that money.

It's pretty standard to offer commissions to sales people who close large sales bringing in revenue. It's more and more common to let sales support folks including those who design demos share in those commissions (at least in the software industry). I contend that by helping Epinions look cleaner and more professional to potential customers, good raters are in fact creating a better demo. If Epinions can create a system where good rater == editor, then yes, it does make some sense to provide financial reward.

So in the conceptual sense, I think there's merit to the idea of editors. The better question is whether the current system meets the goals of the editor program (assuming I am correct in my views of what they are). I think most people would agree that it doesn't in at least some cases. We all know that selections are flawed. There are people who rate well who are not editors and there are editors who do not particularly rate well. Similarly there are top reviewers who are truly experts in their fields and top reviewers who get their appointments strictly by being prolific.

Consequently, in practice, the current system does not add the value that the system would with quality choices based on expertise and not interest would.

So to pay or not to pay? I'm not sure. If the system were working properly - meaning if all editors were deserving and everyone deserving was an editor - I'd say yes, there's some justification for payment. Since we are not in that state it's less clear to me that such justification exists.

Oh yeah, you asked some questions:

1) I have not made any real changes to my rating habits since I became an advisor and then an editor. I have always and will continue to call reviews as I see them and rate accordingly regardless of titles or of payment. I hate hate hate seeing misleading and inaccurate PDA reviews, my particular area of greatest expertise, and I always will. I also will rate according to my standards in other areas regardless of whether I get a nice little blue button to accompany the ratings.

2) I would be very disappointed to see the idea of editors or advisors or experts or whatever go away because I firmly believe there is merit to the idea of giving people who know the subject matter more sorting power than those who don't. However, I do believe the system could and should be improved as stated above.

3) There will always be fights between the haves and the have nots. There will always be have nots who want to be haves. There will always be have nots who resent the haves. Additionally, there is also always the potential for haves to misuse their power or to lord it over the have nots and for other nasty business from both sides of the fence. It doesn't matter what they have. It is a divisive thing, but it's also part of life. There are many different things to have in life and each and every one of us have some and do not have others. I don't think any of us are going to solve that problem. I do think we can strive to make the relationship between the hatted and non-hatted smoother on both sides.

Okay, I'll shut up now. Ken, I did warn you about my verbosity

Janice

[jkkelley]

Originally posted by Sordid-1
Sooner or later, "editor" pay is going to go. A company with a minimal revenue stream CAN NOT afford to pump out money on something that utterly useless - when the well has about run dry, that will likely be the first thing to go. Why not end it now? That would cut expenses with no tangible loss of services.

Key fact: it just does not involve enough money to matter. For the time one spends on Epinions, it is almost impossible to create a situation where one gets compensated as well as one would asking people: "Would you like the Extra Super Value Meal? You'd save $0.20." Seriously. I probably spent thirty hours last month on Epinions, and I didn't make an hour's minimum wage. If I were having no fun, I'd go away.

And even if I were willing to be an editor--which I've made it quite clear I won't accept--an extra ten bucks is a laughable enticement. Epinions does not, at this time, have the resources to make it financially worth anyone's while. It can only do so by making it more fun, which is why I've decided to take down a review every time they do something that makes it more unfun.

IF the "editor" system were trashed, would:

1) Everyone stop reading and rating?

2) Everyone loosen their standards in some way that would threaten the integrity of product "sort orders"?

3) All the current editors leave in a huff, crying and whining all the way to WrittenbyMe<*2> over their lost income that they worked so hard to earn?

1) No. The 10% of people who still consider the title to have meaning and merit would be pretty disappointed, and probably 15% of that 10% would implode in a burst of deletia. And half of those would come crawling back to read, post and rate again--forced to finally admit to themselves that they were really doing it for the attention and interactive experience all along.

2) No. Because none of the standards would change. The bitchy sewing circles (thanks, Salon, for the great phrase) would continue to operate as they always have. The stiffer necks would remain as stiff. The honest and openminded raters would continue to be themselves. The goofballs who will rate something MH just to piss people off will continue to do so. (By that, you may infer that I also will stay the same.)

What would decrease is what I've always called the 'kicking of the dogs'. By 'kicking the dogs' I mean the fine art of watching the Just In section and putting in a good half hour or so dishing out a broad spectrum of ratings that will fall in line with what Eps wants to see, so that one's rating patterns are likely to get one a hat. That way one need not give any of one's sewing circle pals or a-hole buddies a bad rating.

One can even have a set of canned comments to paste in: "Sorry, but there is not enough detail here. Please e-mail me if you update your review and I will re-rate." "Unfortunately, this review is off topic, which is why I rated as I did." All one needs is a handy text file open containing the stock phrases. You end up with a high comment ratio in addition to your 'rating distribution'.

3) I can think of a couple who are stupid enough to do that, but not many. Anyone who has been at the site long enough to be made an 'Editor' knows that at Epinions, for the past fifteen months or so, renumeration only goes down--not up.

And, Ken, you've made a good point: even if Eps were to survive and succeed, what incentive is there for them to increase payment, when so many continue to write so much for so little? Hardly any business that grows and succeeds ever decides to reinvest the rewards in compensating the help. What businesses do when they reach that point is to do what they were designed to do: reward those who risked their money to begin with.

jkk

[mshawpyle]

Originally posted by amykhar
The editor bonus was created to entice raters to rate according to the Epinions guidelines instead of rating for popularity. It is there to help compensate for some of the abuse that raters can get from cliques. Thus, I do think it makes sense at a time when there are no shortage of writers who are writing reviews that are useless to consumers.

Amy

1. People who have to be bribed to abide by the rules deserve no consideration, much less a benefit.

2. If Eps would ever do its job in re: abuse, there would be nothing to compensate for. Besides, anyone who wants to play God should be prepared for whinging. 'If you ain't going to run with the big dogs, feist, git y'self back under that porch.'

3. The existence of 'editors' (who do not in fact 'edit,' and in many cases would be incapable of editing a McGuffey Reader or a muffin recipe) has had no effect on the excess of subliterates who write useless drivel.

Now to more general matters.

The site would not be in the parlous state it is in - a state so desperate they are now making Certain Specified Reforms (I'll get to that) - had they paid attention two and more years ago to Certain Specified People. Many of the new CSReforms are precisely what the CSPeople - experts, first-day members, actual published writers or dead-tree-book-and-mag editors - urged on them before they, in their hubris, pissed away untold rounds of funding.

Someday, when I muster the strength actually to care anymore, I shall that tale unfold.

Meanwhile, allow me to protest at the top of my notoriously powerful lungs something that I don't think Janice can truly mean when she appears to suggest it:

Originally posted by quasar
I'll use an example. Handspring is a big advertiser at epinions. Many (not all) of their products are in the database. When the time comes for that contract to be renewed it behooves Epinions to make sure that the Handspring representative isn't faced with a neverending series of reviews that misrepresent their products or a series of reviews that don't really talk about their products. Epinions wants Handspring to be impressed that people wrote quality reviews of their products that really help people understand what their products have to offer. If that happens, chances are they'll get a contract renewal and thus more money.

Janice

Think about that for a moment. The clear implication is that in order to satisfy its advertisers, it is in the Mutha Site's interest to ensure that what they see is laudatory of their product. (This is why Consumer Reports, famously, has never accepted ads.) The moral obligation of a reviewer on the other hand is to inveigh and warn and raise pluperfect hell when it's called for. Does anyone else see a problem here? I am known, I suppose, for having little faith in the Merry Men of Brisbane Forest, but if ever I were able to catch them (suspicions are another matter and not exactly new - or news; but were I to catch them) at giving in to the temptation to slant things in favor of advertisers, well, they'd best hope SecDef does get missile defense in place, as I am liable to go ballistic.

[Sordid-1]

KFH:
After much pondering of the question (would my behavior be any different if they got rid of editors/editor bonus), my answer would be yes.
Now, I'll stand back while I'm made fun of .

No need to stand back, Kris, step forward and be BOLD about being made fun of.

First off, I don’t believe you because there is an historical precedent. You love reading from this site, I can see the tangible thrill when you discover and pimp a newbie who has caught your eye. Specifically, I remember how vocal and enthusiastic you were about finding davidk93 (good catch, by the way). There is a certain joy in your approach that makes it hard for me to accept that you are merely doing it for minimal financial renumeration or some sort of prestige that, frankly, I am incapable of comprehending. The ‘blue button’ is not a free ticket to merit respect (as can be easily ascertained when you look at who some of your peers are), nor is it a commendation of your fine eye for literature, it is simply a statement that says, “A computer has determined that my method of rating closely desires what this corporate entity desires.” I just don’t believe that is what motivates you, but if that IS the case, I apologize.

KFH:
No, I would not leave the site. Nor would I pitch a piss and moan fest. Instead, I would concentrate most of my efforts on writing, not reading. Sure, I would still read the people who I really really LOVE to read, I just wouldn't go out of my way as much to read new people.

Okay, but does that shift in focus really take value away from the site? If this particular system’s elimination would cause you to add value to the site by being more prolific in what you write, isn’t that actually of more benefit than you tossing your rating into the kitty of 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 others? More specifically, is it your expectation that if the “editor” system were eliminated, yourself and the other “good raters” would quit reading and utter chaos would ensue? Can you honestly state that the elimination of “editors” would so threaten the integrity of the system (specifically “sort order”) that it would justify what is being expended to entice the “good raters” to do continue to do what they had already done? There is historical precedent there, too. Keep in mind that the whole “editor” concept is reasonably new. Prior to its implementation, was there no integrity in the database? Were sort orders constantly “bad”? Is the “editor” system the sole apparatus that has restored some sort of integrity to the way the reviews are displayed?

I maintain that is not the case. I tend to think the sort orders were pretty good before, and they’re pretty good right now. I have seen no discernible positive effects, while I have seen a goodly number of negative ones.

[Sordid-1]

Amy,

Okay you’ve addressed some of the reasons behind the initial implementation of the “editor” system, and we’ve had ample time to gauge the results of said system, so has it worked?

Amy:
The editor bonus was created to entice raters to rate according to the Epinions guidelines instead of rating for popularity.

Okay, I think there might be some middle ground there – there are other reasons for people’s ratings habits that are related to neither the Epinions guidelines nor popularity, but let’s focus on the stated goal – getting individuals to rate according to Epinions desires.

Do you believe that, as a whole, the collective ratings from the editors deviate greatly from the ratings of the remainder of the community? And IF they do, do you believe it is the power of the blue button doing that (e.g. is THAT the motivation that is making them rate “correctly”.) What I am saying here is that I don’t think it has altered ratings behavior in the blue buttoned individuals. They were ALREADY rating according to guidelines prior to being handed the buttons, so why is there any reason to believe that they would not continue to rate by guidelines if NOT given the button? The system is not encouraging change in behavior there, it is simply throwing money (and questionable prestige) at people for just doing what they do.

The key question that will provide either support or condemnation on your statement: Has the implementation of the editor system noticeably changed the “sort order” of product categories to reflect Epinions ratings guidelines rather than popularity?

Amy:
It is there to help compensate for some of the abuse that raters can get from cliques.

I’m not sure I’m following you there – it seems that your premise is that tagging blue buttons on a number of people somehow prevents cliques from abusing raters. Is that correct?

Oddly enough, and this might not be a popular position, I think rather than fighting whatever insidious effects cliques bring to the table, the editors have BECOME a clique, or to be more precise, many cliques.

Amy:
Thus, I do think it makes sense at a time when there are no shortage of writers who are writing reviews that are useless to consumers.

To the best of my knowledge, there has always been an abundance of writers here who produce material that does not garner consensus acclaim as “useful to consumers.” Has the editor system eliminated that problem, compounded it, or been a “non-factor”? Do such evil, non-SCADS producing writers now see their material sink into the mire while before (in the pre-editor days) it rose like cream, sullying the top of the product categories? Or, as far as results are concerned, is it more of “same as it ever was”?

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by mshawpyle

Think about that for a moment. The clear implication is that in order to satisfy its advertisers, it is in the Mutha Site's interest to ensure that what they see is laudatory of their product. (This is why Consumer Reports, famously, has never accepted ads.) The moral obligation of a reviewer on the other hand is to inveigh and warn and raise pluperfect hell when it's called for. Does anyone else see a problem here? I am known, I suppose, for having little faith in the Merry Men of Brisbane Forest, but if ever I were able to catch them (suspicions are another matter and not exactly new - or news; but were I to catch them) at giving in to the temptation to slant things in favor of advertisers, well, they'd best hope SecDef does get missile defense in place, as I am liable to go ballistic.

I was just about to make the same point, and then I saw that you beat me to it.

If Epinions starts to cater to their advertisers in any way, they're dead. Instantly dead. (Forget about the slow death by asphixiation that they're undergoing now as the last few remaining drops of air leak out of the dotcom mania bubble, something that is arguably not anyone's fault.)

The entire point of Epinions, the reason it even exists, is to provide honest advice that is in no way influenced by advertisers.

Actually, for all my griping about Epinions, I do have to give them credit for sticking to that. One of the highest income-share-earning reviews I had written there was a slam of a sleazy credit card offer -- an offer I had found by clicking on an Epinions advertising banner!

[Sordid-1]

Fridai:
I could care less about editors getting more money, with the exception to the editors who barely participate on the site but still get to keep their blue buttons. There are editors who rarely rate, but still are listed as editors-why? that hardly seems fair to the editors who are doing their best to rate regularly and fairly.

Yes, on an individual basis if we are using money as a yardstick, why should it make a lick of difference if Joe Editor is making an extra five or ten dollars a month? It shouldn’t, it’s a negligible amount. But, aren’t a whole bunch of five or ten dollars a month bundled together a sizable sum of money? Could that money be a form of cost-cutting to edge towards profitablity? Could that money be instead funnelled into income share to reward people for providing content to the site?

The money, personally (and it would appear to you, too), is an insignificant thing. But it is, oh, “annoying” I guess is the best word, to be a part of or subject to such an inherently flawed system. Your message is focused on “unfairness” in the system. While I agree with you that it is unfair in many respects (both in theory and application), which might be an underlying factor in the conflicts it helps perpetuate, “fair” is not a quantifiable term. Fair does not equate to dollars and cents – however, dollars and cents are not the currency of this community, and I think we all know that.

[frazzledspice]

Most Epinions members are there because they like to write.

As they become part of the community, they are motivated to read the reviews their friends write.

There isn't any built-in motivation for randomly reading reviews, especially if, when scrolling down the just-in's, you see that something is already rated "somewhat helpful" or "not helpful."

Even if these members are shopping, they will generally look at the array of reviews and pick the review of someone they know to read.

[susanwhipple]

There is no way I could figure out how to quote within a quote and all that...

neverending series of reviews that misrepresent their products or a series of reviews that don't really talk about their products

Anyway, I interpret quasar's post differently. I think she means that it behooves Epinions to make sure the posted material of said advertiser is on topic, about the correct product listed. Not that all the opinions listed are favorable, but that they are all

1) not talking about their competitor's product or one of this company's other products ('this isn't listed in the database, so I put it here')
2) not talking about deviant or criminal acts
3) not full of inside jokes, talking nasty about other members
4) etc.

I don't think that has anything to do with influencing the opinion- possitive or negative.

[quasar]

Originally posted by mshawpyle
Think about that for a moment. The clear implication is that in order to satisfy its advertisers, it is in the Mutha Site's interest to ensure that what they see is laudatory of their product. (This is why Consumer Reports, famously, has never accepted ads.) The moral obligation of a reviewer on the other hand is to inveigh and warn and raise pluperfect hell when it's called for. Does anyone else see a problem here? I am known, I suppose, for having little faith in the Merry Men of Brisbane Forest, but if ever I were able to catch them (suspicions are another matter and not exactly new - or news; but were I to catch them) at giving in to the temptation to slant things in favor of advertisers, well, they'd best hope SecDef does get missile defense in place, as I am liable to go ballistic.

Hold on! I never said positive or favorable reviews, I said <i>quality reviews of their products that really help people understand what their products have to offer</i>. Not once did the words "favorable", "laudatory", or "gushing" come from my lips. Most companies, while not happy to see negative things said about their products, see fair and balanced accurate reviews that include discussion of all of the important features as a sign of professionalism and as a sign that a review site is doing its job properly. They would much rather see honest negative reviews of their products that are well written and accurate than see random gobbledygook in high praise of the same. That's been my experience as someone who's written my fair share of negative reviews. Praise with nothing to back it up is meaningless - most people are intelligent enough to understand that.

And that doesn't even address the off topic postings, the rants, the obscenity, or whatever else someone may decide it would be fun to put under those categories.

Janice

[29th_Candidate]

[i]Originally posted by Sordid-1
"Oddly enough, and this might not be a popular position, I think rather than fighting whatever insidious effects cliques bring to the table, the editors have BECOME a clique, or to be more precise, many cliques."

I think this is just a symptom of a larger problem.

Originally posted by Sun Tzu
"When the common soldiers are too strong and their officers too weak, the result is insubordination."

Epinions' current "advisor system" generates the business-model equivalent of Sun Tzu's above-quoted maxim. It's a system reputed for selecting advisors who, too frequently, don't warrant or merit respect, to oversee non-advisors who too often have distinguished themselves in one manner or another; de facto advisors in many cases.

If people don't respect the system, it's not very likely they're going to harbor a whole lot of respect for the advisor selections it generates. Chances are, they're going to be scornful and derisive; resentful of being babysat by their little brothers and sisters... . Titles, hats, buttons and badges become targets; symbols and reminders of the foolish, counter-productive system those showy icons have come to represent. These, in turn, foment abuse, antagonism and divisiveness, causing the ones who wear them to have to circle their wagons and band together. Authority is a poor substitute for respect; force won't compensate where power lacks. :bullwhip

The system most beneficial for everyone, (or as close to that ideal as may be possible) harnesses and capitalizes on its logical and apparent strengths, yet minimizes its weaknesses, by flowing with the "natural order;" not by resisting it. If that system incorporates advisor selection at all, it implements a method of selecting advisors that doesn't use "titles, hats, buttons and badges" as flashy substitutes meant to compensate for power and respect that have no apparent basis or foundation. Instead, it uses those props and ornaments to augment and affirm that which community position, personal background and previous experience already recognize. I don't think I'm alone in the belief that the current algorithym CLEARLY does NOT do that.

--Jim 29th

[mshawpyle]

Originally posted by quasar


Hold on! I never said positive or favorable reviews, I said <i>quality reviews of their products that really help people understand what their products have to offer</i>. Not once did the words "favorable", "laudatory", or "gushing" come from my lips.

That is why I said you couldn't possibly intend to mean what you could be read as implying.

Dang Ken! Do I have to think this much so early in the day?!

[quote]Originally posted by Sordid-1
First off, I don’t believe you because there is an historical precedent. You love reading from this site, I can see the tangible thrill when you discover and pimp a newbie who has caught your eye.

Hah! Yes, it's true. I love to pimp new people. The list is long of people I've pimped. In my experience, unless people get pimped it usually takes them forever to get read (if ever).

I've found that there is a group of people who joined epinions 2-3 months earlier than I did (that would have been the August-October 1999 people) who think that only THEY are worthy of the recognition of writing well. I enjoy proving them wrong each and every time .

There is a certain joy in your approach that makes it hard for me to accept that you are merely doing it for minimal financial renumeration or some sort of prestige that, frankly, I am incapable of comprehending.

Well let me straighten out something. What I do, I certainly don't do for financial renumeration. Back in the old system (which one you say? Let's go with advisor instead of expert), there was an expectation that you read and rated as much as you wrote. Or you know, there was some sort of formula and since the button does mean something to me, I have always felt that I needed to honor the system.

If the new system were to rid themselves of the editor button and the renumeration, there would be only one visible site recognition left - that of Top Reviewer. And that's why I would switch from heavily reading and rating to light reading and rating (for my own pleasure) and more writing.

The ‘blue button’ is not a free ticket to merit respect (as can be easily ascertained when you look at who some of your peers are), nor is it a commendation of your fine eye for literature, it is simply a statement that says, “A computer has determined that my method of rating closely desires what this corporate entity desires.” I just don’t believe that is what motivates you, but if that IS the case, I apologize.

It's true. I freely admit that the buttons mean something to me. No, I don't think that I am better than the next Joe on the street or that I'm more worthy. It's all an internal thing to me. Even when I take into consideration that the formula for choosing is like a Magic 8 ball, it still means something to me. External respect for me is when someone who I respect, trusts me, reads me, and leaves me comments. That's the greatest feeling in the world. Now the question I need to ponder is, if they took Top Reviewer away, would I still have incentive to contribute to the site? I don't know. I'm not ready yet to go there. Give me a couple of days to think about it .

Okay, but does that shift in focus really take value away from the site? If this particular system’s elimination would cause you to add value to the site by being more prolific in what you write, isn’t that actually of more benefit than you tossing your rating into the kitty of 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 others? More specifically, is it your expectation that if the “editor” system were eliminated, yourself and the other “good raters” would quit reading and utter chaos would ensue? Can you honestly state that the elimination of “editors” would so threaten the integrity of the system (specifically “sort order”) that it would justify what is being expended to entice the “good raters” to do continue to do what they had already done? There is historical precedent there, too. Keep in mind that the whole “editor” concept is reasonably new. Prior to its implementation, was there no integrity in the database? Were sort orders constantly “bad”? Is the “editor” system the sole apparatus that has restored some sort of integrity to the way the reviews are displayed?

Remember, before editors, there were advisors and experts who carried the kind of weight that editors now carry. Honestly, I think that if the editor concept went POOF, epinions still would have their WOT weighting theory to lean back on. It would be a great way for them to save money. And no, I don't think that the whole system would be thrown into chaos. Not at all.

Hmmm...I hope I addressed all of your thoughts there.