dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1152
share rss forum feed

Mango
What router are you using?
Premium
join:2008-12-25
www.toao.net
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Callcentric
·Anveo
·Shaw

[request] How to prevent multiple reviews from the same person?

I'd like to revisit this topic: »[request] Could GBU ignore review ratings of anonymous users??

Recently (since Octoberish) there have been a great deal of suspiciously similar reviews posted about VoIP providers. While I don't intend to tell users how they should review companies, I think we can all agree that we should limit reviews to one per person.

If there's anything us members could be doing to make things easier for the site staff with regards to this issue, please let us know.



NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06

1 recommendation

Re: How to prevent multiple reviews from the same person?

Sure, I think limiting reviews to "one per person" is a good concept. So, let's say you eliminate anonymous reviews (which I think is a good idea--I'm all for anonymous posting everywhere else, but reviews are somewhere between general forum posting and direct support forum posting, which absolutely requires membership)... how do you eliminate a person simply registering several times (since the person is obviously intent on skewing (screwing?) the GBU results? (I'm aware of the site policy towards multiple accounts, but that doesn't mean the reviewer(s) in question couldn't get around it.)

Also, I really don't understand why emailing reviews into DSLR is even allowed. That's never seemed like a good idea. Maybe someone can explain that?
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!"


Mango
What router are you using?
Premium
join:2008-12-25
www.toao.net
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Callcentric
·Anveo
·Shaw

2 edits

1 recommendation

I frequent other sites in which a poster must have a "reputation" in order to post reviews. This can be achieved by doing things like posting in forums, and once the member has posted X number of times without being moderated, they're allowed to post reviews.

Another thing to do instead of/as well as the above strategy is to have a "Hey Mods" feature on reviews as we do on forum posts. This way if a review violated policies it could be quickly removed.

Yet another suggestion is to eliminate reviews from known free proxy servers.

These wouldn't eliminate the problem but it would require much more effort to do what is currently rather easy.

Obviously, I've no idea what implementing these on this site would involve.



NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06

1 recommendation

OK, this site already has the "capabilities" to do something like the following:

Membership level:
0 (or Anonymous) - post your "review(s)" in the 'Rants, Raves, and Praise' forum
1 - you can post a review(s), but it won't be included in GBU (takes 10 days [minimum] to reach level 1)
2 (and beyond) - your review(s) will be included in GBU

Membership has its privileges.
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!"


Mango
What router are you using?
Premium
join:2008-12-25
www.toao.net
kudos:12

That sounds very appropriate. Can I check my own membership level?



NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06

1 recommendation

Always: »/cap



fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

1 recommendation

reply to Mango

The main thing I see going on the VOIP reviews is repeated comments by a handful of members who seem to be on some sort of witch hunt. Here's one I just looked at: »/comment/86630

I think what's being described as "suspiciously posted reviews" is better described as "reviews containing unwanted opinions of the service of a provider or providers."

I don't see anything wrong with anonymous posters posting a review. Many people first find this site by search results that lead them to provider reviews. If they post their review and nothing else that doesn't mean their review is suspect. Creating a higher bar to reviews here -- for example a member having to have X time on the site and X posts -- will simply discourage many people from filing reviews and will be a net loss to future readers. The reviews here are the guts of the site.

There are very few reliable ways to determine if reviewer A is reviewer B. The hopeless task of trying to vet the identity of people doing reviews would be equal to the hopeless task of vetting those responding to reviews to see if they receive compensation of one form or another from a provider.

The whole idea of making the review submission process (or commenting process) more restrictive is based on a very low estimation of the intelligence of readers. I think most people who read the reviews are smart enough to see BS that is BS and to evaluate opinions for themselves.
--
my pants are parched and thirsty


Mango
What router are you using?
Premium
join:2008-12-25
www.toao.net
kudos:12

You didn't ask, but just to be perfectly clear, since I commented on the review you linked: I don't receive compensation from Callcentric in any way for anything I post here.



fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

No, I didn't ask and I never would. That's my point. We don't want to go there.

Raising the bar for filing reviews, with the intention of limiting criticism of providers, would require raising the bar for commenting, to eliminate comments by those receiving things of value from providers. I don't think this site should do either thing.

I prefer to leave it in the hands of readers.
--
my pants are parched and thirsty



NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06

1 recommendation

reply to fatness

As it stands now, reviews here have all the significance of graffiti on a wall. You can throw Spam up against a wall, too.

It certainly is good of you, though, to point out the potential pitfalls involved with [minimally] "limiting" the submission of reviews (and--more importantly?--their inclusion in GBU) while ignoring the potential benefits--to the site, to its members, and to all visitors. There are, of course, problems associated with either approach--doing something vs. continuing to do nothing. However, distinguishing that which is BS from that which is not BS would require new visitors--which seem to be your major concern--spend, perhaps, a considerable amount of time so as to be able to make such a determination (because a basis for comparison must first be formed). Will a new visitor stay long enough for that (and I mean, naturally, one who isn't submitting some BS review--because that visitor will, of course, stay as long as it takes... or will he [which is, I guess, the real question here])?

Suggesting, however, that all commenting would be likewise affected/limited is, at best, spurious.

If longtime members seem overly critical to you of "BS" reviews (whether they are or are not actual BS I couldn't say), then it's probably because the site does nothing at all that they think would be helpful in "vetting" reviews.
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!"


garys_2k
Premium
join:2004-05-07
Farmington, MI
Reviews:
·Callcentric
·callwithus

1 recommendation

reply to fatness

I agree with NotTheMama, allowing anon. reviews only to the "Rants, Raves and Praise" forum only. This lets the driveby poster who wants to complain, or praise, do so in a public forum. Get it off her chest or make sure people get to hear how wonderful a provider has been.

DSLR is given a LOT of credibility, I think that's why we're so high on Google's rankings when a web search is made -- a lot of other sites link to here. Allowing driveby and email spam onto the reviews really only will diminish that credibility. Yes, it's in the eye of the beholder to decide if a given review is worthwhile, of course, but if so many "reviews" are spam then the conclusion will be that it's not worth even looking here any more. Links will dry up and Google will put us farther back on their rankings.

I remember when the alt. pages of usenet were fun, long, long ago. Once the spammers descended on it it became a waste of time to even go there. Having some reasonable control over one of our most valuable resources (our credibility) is something we ought to be very careful about.



fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by garys_2k:

DSLR is given a LOT of credibility, I think that's why we're so high on Google's rankings when a web search is made -- a lot of other sites link to here. Allowing driveby and email spam onto the reviews really only will diminish that credibility. Yes, it's in the eye of the beholder to decide if a given review is worthwhile, of course, but if so many "reviews" are spam then the conclusion will be that it's not worth even looking here any more. Links will dry up and Google will put us farther back on their rankings.

Allowing people to post their own reviews in their own words is the reason for the popularity of the DSLR review section. Those who wish to to limit negative reviews of their preferred providers cannot do so. It's clear that limiting negative reviews is the intention. »[request] "Hey mods" for Reviews

said by garys_2k:

Not a forum question, but on the "Reviews" section I've occasionally seen posts that are obviously put up just to hurt a supplier. Maybe a customer was po'd, maybe it was a personal disagreement with their CSRs, whatever. Could a "Hey mods" link be added to reviews to call attention to blatantly incorrect posts that are placed there?

--
here comes leadership

garys_2k
Premium
join:2004-05-07
Farmington, MI
Reviews:
·Callcentric
·callwithus

1 recommendation

Oh, for sure. Many of us regulars can spot a spammer who's got a vendetta to smear a provider's reputation easily. In many, many cases they will spam with multiple "reviews" claiming to have problems that are clearly not realistic. I guess some spam can go the other way, but those sure seem to be a lot less frequent than the negative spam.

Again, it's the quality of the whole review process that I think DSLR should actively try to maintain and control. By keeping it "free for all" it invites rampant spamming, and that seems to be happening from time to time. That will just make the real users look elsewhere for legitimate information.