Would you trust a review that was paid for?

[Hellmark]

The only time I would begin to trust a paid review, is if it more or less trashed the item it was reviewing, and even then I would want to make sure that the review was paid for by the manufacturer of the reviewed item. It is too easy to ignore flaws when you're being paid.

[ficbot]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I did ask the author to provide a different review for the listing, and she did so.

[RainingLemur]

If the review wasn't all sunshine and soda-pop, sure. I usually like to read the negative reviews (paid or unpaid) of things so I can get a feel of what MAY be wrong with a product when I start tinkering with it. At the least, I wouldn't be walking into things expecting the greatest-most-fantastic-thing-since-sliced-cheese experience, and walk away with a complete let-down.

[Worldwalker]

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.

[Janette55]

I don't want to say I don't trust reviews, but I am very wary of them. As for paid reviews, I caught a section of some show, don't remember what it was, one of checking out such and such to see how truthful it is and this was about reviews of books. The guy who was interviewed had his agency's name listed on several books. He admited that he hardly ever read the books, he was paid by the publishing companies to promote their books, not to review. Yet, he was listed as a reviewer.
Open a book and many will have remarks about the book by an individual, mag, or who knows who.

This is at the page of a pnr that I read. I think the author is good so I buy her books, but I would NEVER use these reviews for a recommendtion.

Capativating, compelling and totally hot (recommend by another author, probably a friend)

Utterly compelling, I love thes hunky,sexy guys, great sexual tension and action. Terrific and totally unique book.

An inovative storyline, passionate protector and lots of twists . . .

Aa complex paranormal fantasy that pulls readers in and doesn't let them go

Tons of suspense and drama

There are several more from people, mags, whoever that praise this book. Those same words could be said about tons of books but never tell me anything about the book. For all I know, just as that man admited, they were paid to say those things, or another author is a friend and so they praise each others books.

I choose my books based on fellow readers, how familiar I am with the authors and a tab bit, very small amount. of reviews, but just to get an idea of what is in the book. Blurbs are many times off of what the book is about. Whether it is a romance, action, drama, western, or other genre, or even non-fiction, I suspect many reviews and reviewers, especially if a fellow author.

[Ravensknight]

nope. I don't trust paid reviews at all. If a book has only paid reviews, then I'm not buying it, period.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

nope. I don't trust paid reviews at all. If a book has only paid reviews, then I'm not buying it, period.

But when you go to Amazon and see a bunch of 4- and 5-star reviews of a book, how do you know the reviews aren't paid-for reviews?

Bottom line, really, is unless you are specifically told that a review has been paid for, it is not possible to know that it hasn't been paid for unless you personally know the reviewer.

Given that it isn't possible to know whether a review has been paid for or not unless the reviewer specifically discloses they've been paid, why make payment the criterion for belief or disbelief?

And if you are going to insist that payment for a review makes the review untrustworthy in toto, at what kinds of payment do you draw the line? Is it OK to accept a box of chocolate but not $10? Or is it OK to accept $10 but not $1,000? Or how about a bunch of bookmarks or pens?

Seems to me that whether a review should be accepted or not should depend on the content of the review. I am much more inclined to accept a reviewer's opinion when the reviewer compares the book under review to other well-known and respected books in the genre.

[Ravensknight]

Originally Posted by rhadin

But when you go to Amazon and see a bunch of 4- and 5-star reviews of a book, how do you know the reviews aren't paid-for reviews?

Because most paid reviews say if they are paid/bribed. Or at least I was under the impression that paid for reviews had to state so. If not, then yes, user reviews "could" be useless.

And if you are going to insist that payment for a review makes the review untrustworthy in toto, at what kinds of payment do you draw the line? Is it OK to accept a box of chocolate but not $10? Or is it OK to accept $10 but not $1,000? Or how about a bunch of bookmarks or pens?

Paid is paid. Bribed is bribed. No matter what it is. You get a free review copy, I suspect you. You the reviewer have nothing to lose. Unlike me who has to shell out actual real life money that I've worked for.

Seems to me that whether a review should be accepted or not should depend on the content of the review. I am much more inclined to accept a reviewer's opinion when the reviewer compares the book under review to other well-known and respected books in the genre.

That assumes that every reviewer is honest, intelligent and well read. Content is important, but the unconscious bias [or conscious if the paid reviewer is a real human] that getting paid brings about is a real thing. You can't ignore it by ignoring human nature.

[DreamWriter]

Originally Posted by rhadin

But when you go to Amazon and see a bunch of 4- and 5-star reviews of a book, how do you know the reviews aren't paid-for reviews?

It bothers me that some reviews may have been paid for by the author without disclosure to potential readers. It'd also be nice to know if a review might be biased because it was written by a friend or relative, or someone else who wrote it as a "favor."

I do read some of the reviews before purchasing a book, but I carefully consider the comments. I suspect that some 5-star reviews are written by friends or relatives because they're just too glowing! I'm very leery of those, especially if there are only a few reviews. I put less weight on a review that doesn't also mention some of a book's shortcomings. Many of the 1- and 2-star reviews make very trivial, petty comments, so I usually discount those, but others do have valuable information.

I compare reviews to see if there's a common criticism among them. Poor-quality writing is one thing, but some reviewers just don't care for a book because it isn't their cup of tea (wrong genre, perhaps). But that doesn't mean that someone else won't enjoy it, so I try to get a feel for that.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

Because most paid reviews say if they are paid/bribed. Or at least I was under the impression that paid for reviews had to state so. If not, then yes, user reviews "could" be useless.

As we all know, what is supposed to be ain't necessarily so. Even if one is supposed to say "I'm the author's significant other" doesn't mean they do or will. Just ain't the human way.

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

Paid is paid. Bribed is bribed. No matter what it is. You get a free review copy, I suspect you. You the reviewer have nothing to lose. Unlike me who has to shell out actual real life money that I've worked for.

Doesn't that make virtually all reviews useless? On many review sites anyone can write a review. No requirement that they have had to buy the product or receive it for anything but free.

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

That assumes that every reviewer is honest, intelligent and well read. Content is important, but the unconscious bias [or conscious if the paid reviewer is a real human] that getting paid brings about is a real thing. You can't ignore it by ignoring human nature.

Well if the reviewer isn't honest and intelligent, what good is the reviewer's review?

[MaggieScratch]

Originally Posted by tompe

Reviewers usually get sent a lot of books for free. And they do not review all of them. So in a sense they get paid by the publisher by not having to buy any books.

Keep in mind they often are "uncorrected proofs" with no cover art and, you know, no corrections. So not much payment. They're not worth keeping or reselling--I might offer them to a friend, but when they come back I recycle them. I did, of course, get to read it for free, but I could theoretically get that from the public library.

I wish more publishers would use digital galleys! I guess they figure I'm going to paper the internet with them, because I have no integrity. It's not like I asked for a kickback or anything.

I know of one author who gets a lot of bad reviews (her stuff is kind of love/hate with little in-between) and she gets on her mailing list and Facebook and begs her fanpoodles to put up positive reviews, which they do.

The point is to actually READ the user reviews, and a variety of them--don't just trust the average. One one-star eejit doesn't discount the thoughtful reviewers.

[theducks]

I think the relationship of the r3eviewer and the Publisher of the review are important.
Ex the NYT book reviewers are paid to write reviews .

This does not invalidate the review s long as the Review publisher does not 'cherry pick' the reviews to please, slam or otherwise bias by selective publication of the 'reviews' in deference to advertisers or corporate ownership or political groups.

There were comments about negative product reviews by customers whose expectations were not made.
Lousy product descriptions and lack of pre-purchase access to full user documentation (same issue with shrink-wrapped boxes in stores) are as much at fault as higher expectations

I have been suckered into products that had fine print (or very lightly mentioned only in the full user guide) limitations that ended up NOT meeting my needs (eg. If you use Feature 'A", you can't use Feature 'B' )

Supplying a free sample to reviewers, with no strings is just a way to get an independent review published in time for the release date.

Trust in the reviewer (and review publisher) are still the important criteria for me.

[The Terminator]

I would say never, If it's paid for by the company that makes the product, I think its just plain stupid and I would never trust the review.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by theducks

There were comments about negative product reviews by customers whose expectations were not made.
Lousy product descriptions and lack of pre-purchase access to full user documentation (same issue with shrink-wrapped boxes in stores) are as much at fault as higher expectations.

A big part of the problem is sorting out why reviews are negative. Take the two examples I listed: in both cases, the user was expecting to be able to do something that is outside the normal range of usage for the item. You're not supposed to scrub out your fish tank every week (not if you don't want dead fish, anyway), nor is it reasonable to expect a photovoltaic panel to have the functions of a battery. It was like someone complaining that a lawnmower was too heavy to be held sideways in mid-air and used to trim hedges. So you have the average star rating, and without reading through all the reviews you don't know if people downgraded something because it broke easily, or because it didn't do what it was supposed to, or because they wanted it to do something totally whacked and it wouldn't do that.

[ATDrake]

Since this topic has popped back up, I'll just link to this story about "Car critic quits over changed Chrysler 200 review". Even when the reviewer is being honest and not holding back, the people in charge of access to the review can weasel things around to make the product look better.

I've read threads on the Amazon discussion boards about people who've seen negative reviews of self-published books disappear after the author made a complaint to Amazon.