pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
 ·Comcast
| [General] Could GBU ignore review ratings of anonymous users?? When looking at gbu reviews today, there is an anonymous poster who posted a review of google voice (giving it 45% overall). His complaints centered on loss of GV connectivity via gizmo, and lack of ipkall reliability.
My reply, indicated problems of changed policy with something like gizmo, or with ipkall reliability, really don't reflect on google voice VOIP services directly (they are more gizmo and ipkall review issues).
The user was anonymous, and probably can't ever update their review. Should these reviews be considered in the totals of gbu?
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
| Re: [General] Could GBU ignore review ratings of anonymous users That and people who sign up same day make bad review then disappear forever. Need some limits Must be member at least 3 months and/or have 20 posts to be able to review. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:12 Reviews:
·voip.ms
·callwithus
·Callcentric
·Vitelity VOIP
·Optimum Voice
·Gizmo5
| reply to pandora
I agree with you completely.
I am tired of drive-bys posted against various providers, submitted by e-mail* or by folks who have just joined that day (and often never appear again).
*[To add insult to injury, many of the e-mail submissions don't even have a screen name, but are submitted as "hidden by request". Now, JUST HOW LAZY is someone who won't even make up a FAKE name? The post still shows their ISP, why can't they at least make up a name].
said by pandora:The user was anonymous, and probably can't ever update their review. Should these reviews be considered in the totals of gbu?
An outstanding point.
How can reviews which can't be updated, be included in the stats.
Sometimes a company will fix a problem, or sometimes a reviewer will realize they made a mistake. But these reviews can't be updated.
-------------------------------------------------
It would be a pretty minimal requirement for someone to at least go through the 30 seconds it takes to register. I'd prefer that a person be registered for---gawrsh---a week before their reviews would be counted in the statistics, but at a bare minimum at least require that they register that day.
-------------------------------------
I can't comment on news stories on most media sites without registration. Why should people be able to trash companies this way?
I wouldn't mind if the reviews seemed credible but, as noted, most of them are rants and/or drive-by trashings. |
|
 Arne BolenHappy Anveo customerPremium
join:2009-06-21
Planet Earth
kudos:1 | +1 |
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| reply to pandora
said by pandora:The user was anonymous, and probably can't ever update their review. Should these reviews be considered in the totals of gbu?
Yes.
The leading problem I've seen in the review section lately is people lobbying the comments section to get reviewers to retract negative comments, or denouncing the reviewers when they will not. There's a lot of ratings-lobbying going on there that we didn't used to see on the site.
--
I see what you did. |
|
|
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | reply to pandora
+1 bigtime. Reviews from anonymous, sent by email, or drive-bys who register, post a review, and never come back - should NOT be counted towards the GBU. I think a good system would be to require reviewers to update their review after 30 days for it to be included in the GBU stats - and maybe waive this requirement for users who've been here for a year or longer. 99% of the time negative reviewers will not fix their review even if their problem has been resolved to their satisfaction. If that's the case then why are we (providers) here? why should I take time out of my day to fix issues for a drive-by who posts a bad review if he'll never come back and edit it?
Part of what makes this site great is the participation of key figures from many providers. Allowing drive-bys and anonymous reviews to drag them down the ratings is discouraging such participation sometimes to a degree where the providers simply don't care anymore. That can't be good. |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| reply to fatness
Fatness, you of course have the last word on this, but check the replies. I believe you are the only one who believes anonymous replies should be counted toward the gbu.
This particular review, just seemed obviously in error, and off the mark to me, without any ability to rectify. 
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:12 | reply to fatness
Respectfully, if Pandora, Nitzan, and PX Eliezer, are in agreement on something, there is a good chance that we are right. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:12 Reviews:
·voip.ms
·callwithus
·Callcentric
·Vitelity VOIP
·Optimum Voice
·Gizmo5
| reply to fatness
On a related issue:
It's really, really annoying that this was moved to "Site Feature Requests" because:
a) Hardly anyone reads it.
b) This particular issue of VoIP reviews is of primary concern to the users of the VoIP Tech Chat forum. It really is not relevant to automotive guys, anime folks, WOW players, etc---they are all fine folks, but their primary interest is not VoIP. It should have stayed in the VoIP forum.
c) The truth of (b) is demonstrated by the fact that US Presidents hardly ever hold cabinet meetings any more. The Defense Secretary does not want military advice from the Agriculture Secretary, and the Agriculture Secretary does not want farming advice from the Defense Secretary. Similarly, VoIP matters should stay in the VoIP forum. |
|
Mangowww.toao.net
join:2008-12-25
Alberta
kudos:8 Reviews:
·voip.ms
·Anveo
·Shaw
·FreePhoneLine
 ·TELUS
·Callcentric
·callwithus
·LINGO
| reply to fatness
said by fatness:The leading problem I've seen in the review section lately is people lobbying the comments section to get reviewers to retract negative comments, or denouncing the reviewers when they will not. There is a place for that. Sometimes people genuinely don't know how the GBU works. For example, I see some people state that they've "rated technical support at 50% because [they've] never used it". If they've never used it, the correct rating is none at all, and a rating of 50% has the side effect of actually lowering the company's score when they've provided good service.
I see no downside to requiring registration to post a review. If the reviewer decides never to update it again, that's their privilege. But at least they have the capability to if they wish to.
m.
--
Recommended ATA Settings | e164 - make your DID accessible via SIPBroker! |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| This means Mango, Pandora, PX Eliezer and Nitzan agree on something regarding VOIP.
I hope Fatness understands that this may have never happened before, and could indicate the end times are near. 
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
 JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5
·Optimum Online
| reply to nitzan
said by nitzan:99% of the time negative reviewers will not fix their review even if their problem has been resolved to their satisfaction. If that's the case then why are we (providers) here? While you may be the exception, there are too many providers who NEVER fix an issue, yet claim GREAT service.
I give you my review of OOL as an excellent example of a company that claims great service yet does NOT deliver it.
5+ years of the same degradation of service at the same time each year, yet they claimed they fixed my issue, and I am being unreasonable to complain about a LITTLE speed drop. I have MANY months of Samknows reports to show the crappy service I get from them.
I agree with the OP though about the drive-by reviews, something needs to be done about those as they can skew a score in EITHER direction...
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! |
|
fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13 Host:
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| reply to Mango
said by Mango: For example, I see some people state that they've "rated technical support at 50% because [they've] never used it". If they've never used it, the correct rating is none at all, and a rating of 50% has the side effect of actually lowering the company's score when they've provided good service. I don't think think it's an appropriate use of the review section for readers and commenters to tell reviewers how they should rate things.
--
I see what you did. |
|
fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13 Host:
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| reply to nitzan
said by nitzan:If that's the case then why are we (providers) here? why should I take time out of my day to fix issues for a drive-by who posts a bad review if he'll never come back and edit it?
Part of what makes this site great is the participation of key figures from many providers. Allowing drive-bys and anonymous reviews to drag them down the ratings is discouraging such participation sometimes to a degree where the providers simply don't care anymore. That can't be good.
As you know, there never has been and never will be any effort by the site to eliminate or lessen negative reviews in order to satisfy providers. Never. And I think your comment really cheapens the efforts of countless people on this site, customers and employees alike, who help others because they like being part of a community where people help other people, not because they're expecting some rating.
--
I see what you did. |
|
Mangowww.toao.net
join:2008-12-25
Alberta
kudos:8 Reviews:
·voip.ms
·Anveo
·Shaw
·FreePhoneLine
·TELUS
·Callcentric
·callwithus
·LINGO
| Obviously, it would be ridiculous for a provider to ask for only positive reviews to be posted, but I don't believe that's what is intended here.
I'm sure many employees on this site help others because they like helping people, but there's a difference between them and someone like myself. I couldn't care less if someone flames me, since I'm relatively anonymous here. But each time an employee posts, his or her livelihood is literally on the line. Forums like this can and will make or break a company.
My point is that for a VoIP provider to pay attention to issues here, instead of their official support method, it must be worth their while. If I were a VoIP provider and had a customer say to me, "Hey, I appreciate that you solved my problem, but the site won't let me update the rating since I didn't know to log in first," I'd be frustrated. If having a presence in the forums hurts a VoIP provider more than it helps it, they might decide not to provide reps in the forum to reduce the incentive for their customers to post here. We don't want that. There are competing forums that actively discourage providers from posting at all, and I think the strong vendor presence here is one important reason why this forum is more popular than any other I know.
We all want everyone to have a five-star experience right off the bat, and not have any reason to post a negative review, but sometimes - even with the best technology - that doesn't happen. If the company in question resolves the problem, we want to know, and if they don't, we want to know that too. If they don't update...well, it happens. But if they can't and want to, that's unfortunate.
I believe I've stated my opinion fairly thoroughly, so I'm not sure I have anything else relevant to add to this thread, but I would like to say thank you for at least considering and responding to our request
m.
--
Recommended ATA Settings | e164 - make your DID accessible via SIPBroker! |
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | said by Mango:If having a presence in the forums hurts a VoIP provider more than it helps it, they might decide not to provide reps in the forum to reduce the incentive for their customers to post here. We don't want that. That's the point I was trying to make. Given my participation in this forum I'm sure some of the "revenge" and drive-by ratings we got were directly related to those users knowing I am here and reading - and they wouldn't bother posting the negative review otherwise. We've even had a couple of people threaten to post a negative review here if we don't yield to their (unreasonable) demands. They wouldn't be making those threats if I wasn't on this forum.
Don't get me wrong- it's not all business and I do enjoy participating here, but it gets really frustrating when a user logs in once, posts an overly negative review, and we never hear from them again. I'm not suggesting DSLR discourage negative reviews - but I don't think a person who's been on DSLR for 9 years should be counted the same as a person who's been here for 1 day and never comes back. The geek in me is thinking some sort of weight mechanism where the more time and/or posts you've made - the more your review will count towards the GBU calculation. But that's obviously up to you guys, not me. |
|
