N9MD
Premium
join:2005-10-08
Wayne, NJ
 ·VOIPo
·ViaTalk
·PHONE POWER
·Callcentric
| [General] GBU listing without WebSite rating
We’ve seen numerous posts referring to the strengths and/or weaknesses of the various VoIP providers’ websites. In fact the WebSite rating does carry a 1/6 weighting, thereby playing a significant role in determining each provider’s position on the GBU list.
I personally feel that, once an individual signs up with any provider, the WebSite … and the Ease of Installation, for that matter … give way to the more important issues of Quality, Reliability, Support and Value. However, the influence of the current overall rating for each provider, including the WebSite component, may well impact the choices by readers looking to sign up for new VoIP service.
I took the liberty of taking out the WebSite values and recalculating the standings.
My presentation in no way is intended to take away from BBR’s Review process. But I would expect that some VoIP providers might see that expending a bit more effort (and possibly expense) in improving a WebSite could raise the overall rating, thereby contributing to more likelihood of impressing a potential customer. Keep in mind that the WebSite rating is the very first of the six categories that a reader sees.
The numbers on the revised listing shown below were calculated as follows:
• (2) Ease of Install % + (3) Call Qual % + (4) Reliability % + (5) Tech Support % + (6) Value % = Total New Rating %
• Total New Rating % / 5 = Average New Rating %
• Average New Rating % / 20 = Average GBU Rating (based on # out of 5)
Modified GBU Results
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
CWU 97 89 91 96 98 = 4.71
CC 92 96 96 94 89 = 4.67
F9 91 95 93 92 96 = 4.67
VOIPo 93 92 87 94 94 = 4.60
PP 89 91 91 92 91 = 4.54
Ooma 92 97 99 75 90 = 4.53
VP 93 90 88 84 91 = 4.46
V.ms 85 89 90 77 91 = 4.32
Vonage 88 81 80 61 80 = 3.90
VT 86 77 73 68 78 = 3.82
P8 91 74 74 63 75 = 3.77
MJ 86 69 66 49 86 = 3.56
Lingo 82 70 67 56 69 = 3.44
Observations: Those in the middle to bottom of the list do not significantly change their overall rating and position. This suggests that reviewers’ displeasure with the usage and/or value of these offerings is the reason for these providers' position on the list. On the other hand, one company moves up from slot 7 to slot 3 and another moves up from slot 6 to slot 4. Curiously, another provider moves down from slot 3 to slot 6, suggesting that their glitzy WebSite is a major factor in lifting them up toward the top of the list. |
|
dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29
·ViaTalk
3 edits | Somewhat agree with easy of installation. Once setup that value probably should never change.
Website however with voip can indicate Control panel design flow ect. Not just how pretty the opening page is.
Biggest problem I see is constant updated reviews that never changes. They just post 100% or nearly 100% across the board to keep the company at the top. Sometimes the remarks they leave don't match the % the put even. Be nice if the updated reviews only counted when the stats actually change. They still get the updated remarks known but the company doesn't move up or down because of it.
|
|
Mango
www.toao.net
join:2008-12-25
Ladner, BC | When you update a review, the company moves up? Is that right? |
|
dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29 | Unless you give them a negative review. |
|
Mango
www.toao.net
join:2008-12-25
Ladner, BC | Why would that be? Instinctively, I would have guessed that the GBU is based on an average of the ratings of all the reviews. No? |
|
N9MD
Premium
join:2005-10-08
Wayne, NJ
·VOIPo
·ViaTalk
·PHONE POWER
·Callcentric
| reply to Mango
said by Mango  :When you update a review, the company moves up? Is that right? Not necessarily. It is my understanding that the statisitcal position for each provider is actually based on reviews from within a finite period ... such as the last six months. So your old reviews no longer count. Thus, a new review, whether with increased or decreased or unchanged ratings, will be included in the next "update" of the GBU page.
Is this correct? |
|
dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29
·ViaTalk
2 edits | reply to Mango
As far as I know it is. Never really looked at the under workings. of the gbu.
Currently voipo and voicepulse business both are scored at 4.49.
Now lets say I have Voicepulse. I write a not so pleasant review of them. Them being tied with Voipo might just be enough for them to switch places in the listing. Voipo didn't actually improve but voicepulse score dropped. |
|
N9MD
Premium
join:2005-10-08
Wayne, NJ
·VOIPo
·ViaTalk
·PHONE POWER
·Callcentric
1 edit | said by dcurrey :Now lets say I have Voicepulse. I write a not so pleasant review of them. Them being tied with Voipo might just be enough for them to switch places in the listing. Correct. Your altered review ratings would be included in the next BBR "update", I believe at 30 day intervals. And, if your and others' new or updated reviews changed any providers' overall numerical rating, their positions on the list might change. |
|
n1zuk
How About Them Raiders
Premium
join:2001-10-24
South Burlington, VT
·Future Nine Corpor..
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
| reply to N9MD
Getting back to the original topic...
Some folks look at VoIP as a lower cost alternative to POTS, and use it in an identical manner -- Pick up the phone, dial, talk, hang up. I never needed a web site when I was with Ma Bell.
Others believe that a VoIP provider's web site is much more an important, integral component of the package they offer. They use many of the functions that VoIP offers -- Voicemail, forwarding, blocking, scheduled do not disturb, etc. The look, feel, and reliability of the provider's web site is an important part, and a bad web site reflects on the provider.
If we can agree on the above, the question is, do *ANY* of the categories used in GBU deserve to be weighted more/less than another?
Ease of Install? Not really important to you or me, but very important to someone new to VoIP. Tech Support? Very important in an unstable/unreliable provider, less so to those who use only basic functions on a reliable system. I could go on, but we all get the idea.
GBU is basically flawed, as its sample size is really too small to give more than a general idea who is near the top, and who is scraping bottom. Its real value is the written reviews, which can be mined for the type of information that really is important to the person looking to purchase VoIP services.
--
New to Forum Life? Click here and learn. |
|
N9MD
Premium
join:2005-10-08
Wayne, NJ
·VOIPo
·ViaTalk
·PHONE POWER
·Callcentric
| said by n1zuk :GBU is basically flawed ... Its real value is the written reviews, which can be mined for the type of information that really is important to the person looking to purchase VoIP services. I totally, absolutely, completely agree!  |
|
usa2k
Please PRAY for Rebekah
Premium,MVM
join:2003-01-26
Canton, MI
clubs: |  Re: [General] GBU listing without WebSite rating
So you are trying to apply the 80-20 rule to GBU,
where 20% of customer concerns affect 80% of the success story. |
|
N9MD
Premium
join:2005-10-08
Wayne, NJ
·VOIPo
·ViaTalk
·PHONE POWER
·Callcentric
| said by usa2k :So you are trying to apply the 80-20 rule to GBU, where 20% of customer concerns affect 80% of the success story. I would frame it more in terms of "You can fool 80% of the people 20% of the time."  |
|
usa2k
Please PRAY for Rebekah
Premium,MVM
join:2003-01-26
Canton, MI
clubs: | You made me realize its been almost a year since I updated my review. That has now been corrected.
»Review of VOIPo by usa2k |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
| reply to N9MD
Re: [General] GBU listing without WebSite rating
The significance of a providers website may vary based on how a customer uses it.
For example, when I get a call from a telemarketer or a pollster, at my next computer session I'll review the numbers which have called my home and blacklist them from Ooma. The last blocked call came to my home phone number at 11:02 AM this morning. It was for a political candidate.
To blacklist, I regularly have to access my providers website. I will also activate multi-ring if I'm gone for more than a few hours or am expecting an important call to my home. Generally its set to only ring my cell phone in the event of an internet outage. I haven't used this feature in a few weeks, my need to use it comes in spurts.
Finally, my provider has an active forum. I regularly read it to see what is going on.
For my non-premier phone lines, where call blocking and call forwarding aren't functional, I never use my providers website. As the features I use most often are premier features. IMO the significance of a providers website will vary by customer, by provider, and by subscribed services. That makes it a very complicated variable to value.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs:
·VOIPo
·Metrocast Communic..
 ·AT&T DSL Service
·ViaTalk
| reply to N9MD
Although I also feel the GBU is flawed for numerous reasons, I think the website portion is just as significant (assuming we are talking the CP here). The CP to some is the central hub of a provider, really the brains behind the options, etc. A provider may feel the CP is sufficient, but after seeing numerous low scores in the website area they may want to make some changes. |
|
N9MD
Premium
join:2005-10-08
Wayne, NJ
·VOIPo
·ViaTalk
·PHONE POWER
·Callcentric
| said by ptrowski :after seeing numerous low scores in the website area they may want to make some changes. Precisely, p.......! Your comment reflects precisely the spark that led to my initial post. Even with excellent pricing, features, support and so on .... the BBR Web Site Rating (and the actual low-quality appearance of a provider's website) may be off-putting to newcomers who are looking to venture into VoIP.
If the provider understands this, then the powers that be might do well to put a bit more effort into the Control Panel.
Just an observation from a simple guy with a selfless agenda. |
|
nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| As one of the providers affected (if not the most affected!) by this- I don't think our problem is really the control panel. Functionality-wise there's quite a bit you can do in there and it's pretty well organized (IMHO). I think what most folks are looking at is more visual and how the website as a whole looks rather than what the CP alone looks like.
The funny thing is though- a lot of people think a "pretty" website increases sales. In reality it doesn't. People who want to buy try it anyway, and those who don't will not even if the website was much prettier. In the end there are two types of people who actually buy: 1. those who were referred by friends/reviews/etc. and 2. those who came for the price.
Neither of these base their buying decision on whether the website is pretty or not.
Yes- I know. If the website was prettier we'd probably get more people telling their non-geek friends about it. But the assumption that having a nicer website will somehow magically increase sales dramatically is false. Remember our target market is relatively geeky, hence a geek-oriented website is not a deal breaker.
Having said that- yes, we do need to improve it.  |
|
josephf
join:2009-04-26
·VoicePulse
2 edits | said by nitzan :The funny thing is though- a lot of people think a "pretty" website increases sales. In reality it doesn't. Why is it then common across the board that companies spend relatively large sums to pretty up sales websites? |
|
neftv
join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA
·Broadvox Direct
2 edits | reply to N9MD
One thing to see a pretty web site that fools prospective customers and another to see a functional simple web site that is well laid out and that shows a prospective customer what they are getting precisely including COMPLETE costs before ever getting close to the signup page. |
|
nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| reply to josephf
said by josephf :said by nitzan :The funny thing is though- a lot of people think a "pretty" website increases sales. In reality it doesn't. Why is it then common across the board that companies spend relatively large sums to pretty up sales websites? It's also common to spend hundreds per customer on advertising - doesn't mean it's financially smart nor necessary. Everything is a give and take - you can either charge high prices and pretty up everything and blast ads all over the place OR you can charge value prices, but limit your spending on pretty and ads. Both methods are legitimate. We obviously chose the value route - I'd rather give you lower prices for superior actual service, even if it means an uglier website. |
|
