MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Would you trust a review that was paid for?

Worldwalker · 03-18-2011, 10:22 AM

Paid reviews aside, user reviews are often utterly worthless. I've been looking for a small solar-powered device, and one I was checking out on Amazon was given one star by a user who apparently expected it to come with a battery (they thought anything with a solar panel would behave like their glowy path lights) and was angry that it didn't -- despite no hint anywhere in the description that it might have a battery or display battery-like behavior. The reviewer bought the wrong thing because of a misunderstanding about how solar panels work, and retaliated against the device (the bad review) instead of the true source of the problem (their own ignorance). I've seen a user horribly review a fancy aquarium that was not meant to be moved once it was set up because it was so hard to take it to the sink and scrub it weekly (which also guaranteed him a case of perpetual new tank syndrome) -- again, a user not knowing how the product should be used (despite things like its printed instructions) blaming a product instead of his own ignorance. In books, we've all seen reader reviews that are basically "this is (genre) and I hate (genre) so this book sucks" on very good books, whose descriptions describe them well, for exactly the same reason: someone buys something they don't want, need, or know how to use, so they blame it, not them.

Consumer Reports magazine doesn't accept any advertising, nor do they accept free products. Their money comes from selling reports to customers (the magazine, Web reports, etc.), and when they review an item, they go to the store and buy one, so they know they're not getting a specially-vetted review specimen. The only problem with them, really, is their own kind of ignorance. I remember back in the early days of home computers when they had a glowing review, recommending the Coleco Adam (aka the "Adam bomb") which was possibly the worst home computer ever built. They clearly didn't know much about the needs of small computer users (and they were lucky to get an Adam that actually worked ... many were DOA). I've had difficulty trusting them on anything more complicated than washing machines and lawnmowers since then.

I've noticed that financial stories (probably for legal reasons) usually state the author's or publisher's position: "Company X is also owned by Publisher Y" or "Writer Z owns no stock in Company X". Professional reviewers (as opposed to the idiots who don't know what to do with their fish tanks) need to do the same: "Company X advertises on our blog" or "Company Y paid a fee for this review." Disclose 'em all and let the market sort 'em out.

03-18-2011, 10:22 AM	#34
Worldwalker Curmudgeon Posts: 3,085 Karma: 722357 Join Date: Feb 2010 Device: PRS-505	Paid reviews aside, user reviews are often utterly worthless. I've been looking for a small solar-powered device, and one I was checking out on Amazon was given one star by a user who apparently expected it to come with a battery (they thought anything with a solar panel would behave like their glowy path lights) and was angry that it didn't -- despite no hint anywhere in the description that it might have a battery or display battery-like behavior. The reviewer bought the wrong thing because of a misunderstanding about how solar panels work, and retaliated against the device (the bad review) instead of the true source of the problem (their own ignorance). I've seen a user horribly review a fancy aquarium that was not meant to be moved once it was set up because it was so hard to take it to the sink and scrub it weekly (which also guaranteed him a case of perpetual new tank syndrome) -- again, a user not knowing how the product should be used (despite things like its printed instructions) blaming a product instead of his own ignorance. In books, we've all seen reader reviews that are basically "this is (genre) and I hate (genre) so this book sucks" on very good books, whose descriptions describe them well, for exactly the same reason: someone buys something they don't want, need, or know how to use, so they blame it, not them. Consumer Reports magazine doesn't accept any advertising, nor do they accept free products. Their money comes from selling reports to customers (the magazine, Web reports, etc.), and when they review an item, they go to the store and buy one, so they know they're not getting a specially-vetted review specimen. The only problem with them, really, is their own kind of ignorance. I remember back in the early days of home computers when they had a glowing review, recommending the Coleco Adam (aka the "Adam bomb") which was possibly the worst home computer ever built. They clearly didn't know much about the needs of small computer users (and they were lucky to get an Adam that actually worked ... many were DOA). I've had difficulty trusting them on anything more complicated than washing machines and lawnmowers since then. I've noticed that financial stories (probably for legal reasons) usually state the author's or publisher's position: "Company X is also owned by Publisher Y" or "Writer Z owns no stock in Company X". Professional reviewers (as opposed to the idiots who don't know what to do with their fish tanks) need to do the same: "Company X advertises on our blog" or "Company Y paid a fee for this review." Disclose 'em all and let the market sort 'em out.