U is for Useful, G is for Good, N is for... (dooyoo - Members' Opinions On How to Rate And Comment)

Member Name: plipplop

Product:	dooyoo - Members' Opinions On How to Rate And Comment
Date:	11/06/09 (146 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: It need not be very complicated

Disadvantages: But certain people seem to make an art form out of making it just that

Having been a member of this site for some eight years, I do wonder why, after all that time, I'm bothering to write this. The ratings system on all opinion sites seems to be the most divisive element of all and is normally at the heart of nearly every conflict taking place. There's nothing wrong in wanting to write good quality reviews, of course, but there is something deeply worrying about the hysterical reactions to anything less than a very useful rating that we're now seeing here on Dooyoo on a daily basis.

Somewhere along the line, I think somebody decided that the word 'useful' doesn't mean useful any more and whenever they see a sentence containing it, they translate it to mean good. So a very useful rating is now seen as a very good rating, a somewhat useful rating as somewhat good and so on. Intrinsically, this seems to result in Catherine Tate style inward sucking of breath and proclamations of "f***ing liberty!" whenever something other than very good, I mean useful appears on a review. Whether this is the result of an unhealthy user mentality (i.e. they're nuts) or a lack of understanding of the system I'm not sure. The first one can't really be addressed by me, but there's scope to add some meat to the bones of the second one here and I guess that's what I'm going to try and do.

In principle, a rating is a personal response to something that a member has written. As consumers, as members or even just as people, we are all different. We have different aspirations, different interests and different needs and, as such, we should expect different reactions to the things that we say. This shouldn't be attacked nor should it be feared. We should consider this to be a good thing. This isn't, after all, a real community if it only contains one way of doing or saying things. A rating, however, is NOT a grading nor is it a marking. We left those behind at school and inherently a 'marking' is an assessment of all things considered about the writing. On a review site, a rating is only an assessment of one thing and that is how useful the opinion was or could be to an individual. There are things that will influence that, for sure, but personally, I'm not here to tell you off for being unable to spell. I'm really only interested in what you have to say about something and, provided that I can gather that from what you write, this is the only thing that will affect my rating.

A rating doesn't mean that the recipient is expected to do anything with it. I'm not, for example, a big fan of those 'add more and I'll come back and re-rate this" type threats that you often see on reviews. I use the word 'threat' here quite purposefully, because for me it is a slightly threatening tactic. It's basically saying that the author hasn't done something the way that the rater would like it, and the rater is largely instructing the writer to do something about it. This doesn't really work for me. If I am rating a review, it is without prejudice around what you will do about it. I don't feel that you should do anything. That's not for me to say. If you decide to change something in response to what I say, then that is your right but it's not a requirement. This is a critical point. Rating a review should not be an instruction that the writer should do something differently, nor is it an attempt to bully the writer into conforming to a certain standard. Many members seem to misunderstand this.

I don't have a ratings system. I'd question the flexibility of anyone that does. I don't start at useful and work up or down according to a complicated system of criteria. I simply read the review and then consider whether that review helped (or would help) me make an informed decision about that product if I were interested in it. This is another important point. A rating should reflect the outcome of having read the review. On this basis, a very useful review would probably mean that I could now decide whether the product was for me, or not. A useful rating would mean that I might still need to read around further. A somewhat useful rating would mean that I would need to read around quite a bit more. A not useful rating means that my reaction to the product hasn't changed since I read the review. I think it's really as simple as that. There will be lots of factors that influence that, and those will/should vary from person to person, but the premise should remain fundamentally the same.

To rate a review based on how you felt about the product before you read the review is generally inappropriate. To rate a horror film review as not useful because, for example, you don't like horror films is silly. If you don't like horror films, then don't read reviews of them. There's a requirement of peer reviewing that, by reading the review, you are indicating that you have or will have some level of consumer interest or are prepared to consider how you would feel if you did have some consumer interest. I don't, for example, use perfume, but I can read and rate a review fairly based on my interest as somebody who might purchase perfume as a gift. Rating based on personal knowledge of a product should be treated with caution. Rating a film, for example, as somewhat useful because you thought it was great and they said it was rubbish would be unfair. Explain that in the comments, but rate based on how well they conveyed the idea that it was rubbish. But if somebody writes a review and gives information that you know to be incorrect then a lower rating would almost certainly be inappropriate.

Some community members and consumers may have very specific items of interest. This is not pedantry and should not be seen as such. If, for example, you only use a Mac, then a review of a software product may not be entirely useful if the writer doesn't mention whether the product is compatible with a Mac. This isn't an error on the writer's part, as he/she may not know this information. Nonetheless, it will mean that to the Mac consumer, the review may be less than very useful. This is one of the fundamental principles of the rating system that many members fail to understand. These requirements may seem impossibly precise. A favoured example is a member who might need to know whether a hotel is dog friendly and may rate reviews as useful unless you tell them this. That is their prerogative. You can argue that it's petty or unreasonable and you are entitled to that opinion, but as long as that member rates this way because this is fundamentally important to them, then their rating is an appropriate one. This can apply to style, as well as content. Members who find that they lose the will to live with very long reviews have a perfectly valid point in rating appropriately. Regardless of content, a review can only be useful if that content is accessible to an individual. It's equally acceptable to rate on the basis that you personally found the format very helpful in accessing the information. A review written in rhyming prose, for example, might be a fun, quick and simple way to absorb what the writer wants to say. There's nothing wrong with rating that very useful when others rate it useful or lower. It always works both ways.

I don't hold to the concept of revenge rating. For me, it's a rather childish term that reflects more on the recipient that the sender. There's something inherently arrogant about suggesting that somebody revenge rated your review because you rated them a certain way. You can't really be certain, after all. Even if it appears to have been left in malice, only the rater will know that. If somebody rates ten of your reviews in ten seconds, then you know that they haven't read them properly and that is a form of abuse. It's called speed clicking. Strangely enough, the community is far less willing to report speed clicking when the speed clicker leaves them a very useful rating but it's exactly the same thing. If you spot speed clicking, then report it, but if you don't wish to be a hypocrite then report it regardless of the rating that you receive. I generally ignore members who rate more than a certain number of reviews in a 30-day period (identified in the community centre.) My personal view is that a member can only really properly read and rate a certain number of reviews in a day and over a certain threshold, they're just clicking to get reads in return.

I don't generally hold to the idea of leaving a comment to explain a rating, either. The suggestion that it is only common courtesy doesn't really hold water. Why is it courteous? In my experience, the percentage of the community that asks you to explain a rating is not interested why you rated a certain way, only that you did. Inherently averse to anything less than a very useful rating, your explanation will be of little interest to them and will simply stir up conflict. If I am requested by a member privately to explain a rating then, as long as the request seems sensible or is made politely, then I will return to the review and leave a comment. Feedback is only useful when welcomed by the recipient. You quickly learn who is actually interested in feedback and who wants a fight. The 'block sender' function within your messages generally enables you to ignore the latter group, which would always be my advice. You simply cannot win in a struggle with this group of members and the community is more than big enough to give them a wide berth. Leave them and their persecution complex to fester alone. Life really is too short.

I normally leave comments on a review where the review has catalysed a thought in my mind, however random that might be. More often than not, for me, it's something smutty and for that I apologise with limited sincerity. Very, very rarely will that thought be something as banal as "great review" and there's something a bit icky about members who comment like this as a rule. Generally, your comment should be appropriate to the review but this is widely open to interpretation and probably rightfully so. I'm not normally a fan of commenting on my own reviews. It looks a little needy and desperate to me, particularly when directed simply to thank an individual as it would be more appropriate to send that individual a private message. Where a conversation about the product kicks off then a reply by the author would seem to be more appropriate and this can stimulate some interesting discussion. I'd recommend reading other people's comments before you write one. I've occasionally written a comment, only to see the answer to a question already there or to see that someone has already made the point that I have.

There's a debate that says it's against the rules to mention another member in your comment, directly or otherwise. I think this needs careful consideration. If somebody comments on a review and you want to reply to that comment, it might be better to message that person privately. That aside, provided your response is constructive and relevant I can't imagine that the member would be particularly offended.

My final piece of advice would be to become unconditionally unaware of how other members have rated your reviews. Don't set your alerts up so that you are emailed when somebody rates your reviews and don't pour over the lists of who has rated your opinion. Personally, I'm very happy with my writing style, for example, and whenever I submit a review, I am confident that it says what I wanted to say how I wanted to say it. As such, any rating from a member is a fair rating. I almost certainly wouldn't change anything (unless I have made an error) and couldn't be offended by any rating left by a member. I struggle to understand why anyone would feel differently. A quick glimpse at my profile tells me I have 24 not useful ratings. I haven't a clue on which review or from whom, and I don't intend to find out. Indeed, I think it's a suspiciously low figure. I can't help thinking that if the ratings system were to be used properly then we'd all have far more ratings that were less than very useful. It's not, however, hard to see why people are generally reluctant to rate and comment honestly. The very public, very obvious backlash to anything less than very useful from a very vocal minority is enough to put anyone off and I wouldn't criticise anyone for going for the quiet life. It is as it always has been and, sadly, probably always will be.

Summary: Musings of a member