The New Intimacy

New Presentation of Reviews on Product Pages? Like It or No?

Skip to last post
Set alerts
Updates
Forum search
Contributor: Kindred Kindred
Quote:
Originally posted by Antipova
I wonder if they're even using the simple mean right now, though. Sort these by usefulness:

link

The "first-most-helpful" review has 18 EU votes and no others, and the "second-most-helpful" has 23 EU votes and no ... more
The only thing I can guess is that perhaps the number of comments factors into "usefulness." ; Or else it defaults to oldest review first for equally useful reviews? The only other difference is that one used the extended template and the other used the standard. Do you have more examples to compare?

edit: I've found a few more examples and it does appear that it defaults to the oldest review first if there are more than one considered equally useful.
06/18/2011
Contributor: NarcissisticLust NarcissisticLust
Quote:
Originally posted by MeliPixie
Here is my proposition! it doesn't have to be exactly like this, but how do you guys feel about my happy medium? (Sorry about the size, no matter what I did, the site I uploaded it to resized it. Put on your reading glasses, y'all!) The red ... more
That would be much better!
06/18/2011
Contributor: namelesschaos namelesschaos
Quote:
Originally posted by Kindred
The only thing I can guess is that perhaps the number of comments factors into "usefulness." ; Or else it defaults to oldest review first for equally useful reviews? The only other difference is that one used the extended template and the ... more
I think you figured it out they are using the simple mean, that isn't the issue, the problem is both have the same mean and going back to it humans not thinking the ways the computer is the "tie breaker" is counter intuitive. We are using the number of EU votes as the tie breaker which makes sense the algorithm doesn't seem to be deigned to take that in to account hence this happens.

Which again demonstrates my point about the benefit of a weighted average since total votes are factored in.

Although, assuming this is what going on I'm not sure older makes for a good tie breaker. Which wouldn't be as much of a problem with a weighted mean as it is less like two reviews are going to have the same weighted average(God I'm starting to sound like the weighted mean's agent), however it not hard to imagine two review with all EU or useful votes.

So to review it appears the the algorithm is a simple mean with the ranks corresponding to 1,2,3,4,5. If two reviews have the same mean the tie is broken by oldest pud. date. Any one have any examples that disprove this?
06/18/2011
Contributor: Antipova Antipova
Quote:
Originally posted by namelesschaos
I think you figured it out they are using the simple mean, that isn't the issue, the problem is both have the same mean and going back to it humans not thinking the ways the computer is the "tie breaker" is counter intuitive. We are ... more
OH!!!! You guys are brilliant, I was completely stumped by that ranking, but your theory makes a lot of sense.
06/18/2011
Contributor: pixieluv pixieluv
Thank you for the info on how the mean works, but I still find it "useless" to to do it that way. First because it begs people who are dishonest to write reviews and then vote down the other reviews on that item. While not wanting this to be true, people are dishonest.

Second, rating one review as most helpful and putting it on the front page begs for people to only read one or two reviews or again in the dishonest realm, begs people to use those two reviews to vote, comment and rank up points.

It would just be more fair all the way around if they did a random post on the product's main page and just put up two random reviews each time the page pops up with the link to look at all reviews then have the all review page post what's most helpful or ranking or whatever. Personally I want to see the newest reviews on top as there are products that have gone through improvements and over two years the actual product has changed. Plus I want to know what people are thinking now and not two years ago.
06/18/2011
Contributor: Tuesday Tuesday
Quote:
Originally posted by pixieluv
Thank you for the info on how the mean works, but I still find it "useless" to to do it that way. First because it begs people who are dishonest to write reviews and then vote down the other reviews on that item. While not wanting this to ... more
Highlighting the most useful positive and negative reviews is for the benefit of the buying public, not to please reviewers. Its entirely appropriate to cater to the public.

The calculation of the most helpful reviews could use some tweaking, but its a good idea.
06/18/2011
Contributor: Bignuf Bignuf
Quote:
Originally posted by MeliPixie
Hi everyone, is it just me or do some toys have a new way of presenting the reviews on their pages? Like, it used to be just a list of reviews, but just today I have noticed on the product pages there is now a chart-type thing displaying what is ... more
I like the way it was posted before too. Since EF seems very customer focused, perhaps they will listen to their loyal customers and change back in some way?
06/18/2011
Contributor: Bunnycups Bunnycups
Quote:
Originally posted by Tuesday
Highlighting the most useful positive and negative reviews is for the benefit of the buying public, not to please reviewers. Its entirely appropriate to cater to the public.

The calculation of the most helpful reviews could use some tweaking, ... more
Yup, you're absolutely correct. I think reviewers tend to forget that that Eden Fantasys is a business trying to cater to the shopping needs of buyers and that reviewers are not the typical buyer.

I don't care for the way the reviews are showcased, but I think that is because of the way I browse the site. When I shop on Amazon I always go straight to find the most useful positive and negative reviews for products I'm interested in.
06/18/2011
Contributor: Antipova Antipova
Quote:
Originally posted by Bunnycups
Yup, you're absolutely correct. I think reviewers tend to forget that that Eden Fantasys is a business trying to cater to the shopping needs of buyers and that reviewers are not the typical buyer.

I don't care for the way the reviews ... more
Even on Amazon, I look for the most useful 3 star reviews, and sometimes the 2 and 4 star. One star and five star reviews tend to be more emotional/gushy, and have less weighty information. (On Amazon, anyway. At Eden, all the reviews have a baseline higher quality, but I still often get more information from reviewers who were neither thrilled nor appalled by the product.)

I really wish that 5 star reviews and 1 star reviews didn't trump 2 and 4 star reviews which are ranked equally or more usefully in the showcasing algorithm they're using right now. And I say that both from a reviewer's perspective, *and* from a customer's perspective.
06/18/2011
Contributor: tigerkate tigerkate
I don't like this new system of showcasing reviews... It feels like, to me, that one review will get voted most "useful" over and over again and then there is no opportunity for other helpful reviews to be displayed and showcased. Kinda monopolizes it.

I also hate the lack of "verified" vs not verified reviews. It makes it much harder to find products to request for assignment... But maybe EF has intended it to work out like that, hm..?
06/18/2011
Contributor: pixieluv pixieluv
Quote:
Originally posted by Tuesday
Highlighting the most useful positive and negative reviews is for the benefit of the buying public, not to please reviewers. Its entirely appropriate to cater to the public.

The calculation of the most helpful reviews could use some tweaking, ... more
That's the whole point, the way that the positive and negative reviews is done means that many of the good reviews (mainly ones in between that have some GREAT information that the worst and the best do not have) get overlooked and its unfortunate to the public that they do not have access to this information. In addition, since the voting system does not work to get to the best positive and negative reviews well and since the system is currently designed to highlight OLDEST reviews, it really does not benefit the public.

I do not make my statements based on getting reviews read for the people who write them, but what is best for the people who are reading them. I don't waste my time writing reviews so that I can get points or get a better rating. I enjoy writing them because I want people to have more information to go on than what is given on the front page. The writing is for the public. The way the reviews are showcased currently is not. Which is more helpful, the review that was voted most helpful that was done 2 years ago on a product which has been altered or improved (with the information on the 2 year old review being outdated) OR the newer review that has the updated information that is ranked just as useful but ranks 0.04 lower than the older review?

I would agree with the most helpful, if it really was most helpful, but it is not. I also use amazon and find their helpful review system just as bad in giving accurately the best positive and negative reviews. I look to the ones that have detail and experience and are current.
06/19/2011
Contributor: Kindred Kindred
Quote:
Originally posted by pixieluv
That's the whole point, the way that the positive and negative reviews is done means that many of the good reviews (mainly ones in between that have some GREAT information that the worst and the best do not have) get overlooked and its ... more
I think you fail to recognize that the current system in place is attempting to do exactly what you are suggesting. EF is trying to showcase what is considered the "most helpful" reviews up front. However, the calculation of that selection is what needs tweaking. Right now the equation seems overly simplistic and is not taking other variables into account. It appears to be a simple mean with oldest reviews prioritized over more recent ones.

Also, I think we should also consider that what "we" think is the best method, may not be what appeals to the general public. We may think it does, but we have a slightly different perspective as reviewers. The old system was not very different. Previously, all reviews were listed but in order of usefulness based on votes the review received. Now it simply takes a click on a link to see all of the reviews and then hitting the sort button to get the same results.
06/19/2011
Contributor: P'Gell P'Gell
Quote:
Originally posted by namelesschaos
I think you figured it out they are using the simple mean, that isn't the issue, the problem is both have the same mean and going back to it humans not thinking the ways the computer is the "tie breaker" is counter intuitive. We are ... more
*Giggle* You're good at math. (flutters eyes)

No, really, chaos, I would never have been able to figure this kind of stuff out in a million years.

Thank you for your math savvy input.
06/19/2011
Contributor: Antipova Antipova
I'm curious... I know I've briefly mentioned this a couple of times, but other than Selective Sensualist and P'Gell I don't think anyone else has. Does this make sense to others, or am I barking up a tree with nothing in it?

The current algorithm is using simple means---I think we all agree that this is less useful than using weighted means would be.

The current algorithm also gives precedence to 5-star or 1-star reviews, and I don't think that's very helpful for customers. Personally, before I ever became a reviewer, I noticed that 2, 3, and 4 star reviews were more likely to have meaty information than 1 and 5 star reviews. Of course, on Eden, the baseline review is much better than the baseline on someplace like Amazon, but I still find myself preferring to read 2, 3, and 4 star reviews much of the time.

And then, even more than my own personal preference for middlin' reviews, showcasing the 5 and 1 star reviews preferentially means that we're hiding some of the most useful reviews.

Take the hibiscus swirl vibe (because that one has a *lot* of reviews, and they're well-spread in the histogram.)


The negative review currently showcased is this review:

1 star review (there is only one 1 star review):
-1 EU, 1 U, 4 SU votes.

Other negative reviews possible:

2 star reviews (there are 7, I'm just showing the top 3):
- 1 EU vote
- 6 EU, 1 SU votes
- 4 EU, 2 U votes

3 star reviews (there are 6, I'm just showing the top 3):
- 16 EU votes
- 7 EU votes
- 7 EU, 2 U votes


So if I was a customer wanting to see a negative perspective on the Hibiscus Swirl vibe, would I want the 1 star review to be showcased, or would I want the 3 star review with 16 EU votes? Bear in mind of course that anybody who wants to take more than a cursory glance can still go and see the 1 star, 2 star, or 3 star reviews with a little diligent clicking. But if our intent is to give the casual browser the most useful positive and negative reviews without having to do extra clicking?

What do you guys think?
06/19/2011
Contributor: pixieluv pixieluv
I am smiling while I am writing this, just so that my next sentences are not considered as snooty or showing anger.

I think my point is being missed. I don't think a "most helful" qualification system works, no matter how you tweak it. Period.

While I don't think that all reviews are good, I don't think "we" as reviewers should qualify them either. Give the public the best opportunity to see all the reviews, randomly. If they want more info, they will go to the page with all the reviews to get it.

I guess my 2 cents is just that I don't like qualifying reviews no matter how you do the math.

FYI - I want everyone to know that I respect all of your opinions and this has been an interesting discussion.
06/19/2011
Contributor: Kindred Kindred
Quote:
Originally posted by pixieluv
I am smiling while I am writing this, just so that my next sentences are not considered as snooty or showing anger.

I think my point is being missed. I don't think a "most helful" qualification system works, no matter how you ... more
But you can see all of the reviews, even with the new format. You simply click on the "Read all reviews" link towards the bottom of the page. And even with all reviews listed on single page, there still has to be a sequence in which they are listed. In the old format, the order was still listed in order or helpfulness.

While you may not think highlighting a "most helpful favorable" and "most helpful critical" review is what the average consumer is looking for, obviously EF does, as do several other web sites such as Amazon. And I don't think it's in EF's best interest to ever highlight a poorly written review, even randomly. Someone really interested in reading an array of reviews will make the effort. It's the people that read one review and make a decision that this process is targeting. As I said before, the concept is reasonable, the method needs adjusting.
06/19/2011
Contributor: B8trDude B8trDude
I'm going to have to agree that the current (new) system needs to be adjusted. The use of the simple mean to "highlight" the "most helpful favorable" and the "most helpful critical reviews" is flawed. As noted, there are several problems with this:

1. New reviews, by virtue of the fact that they may have only one positive vote, instantly move to top of the list if any of the other reviews have even a single vote less than the most positive.

2. Just because someone rates a product with 4-stars does not make it a critical review! There are MANY favorable (not critical) reviews for good products that have 4-stars. This is a serious flaw in the present system.

3. All but the first two reviews get buried in the process and in order to see them, you have to click on the link that says, "Read all . . . reviews."

Again, as the present system is flawed, new reviews with only one vote get highlighted, reviews of truly bad products can get pushed off the radar, the genuinely most useful reviews are also easily obscured, and it's more difficult to see all of the reviews for each product.
07/05/2011
Contributor: Antipova Antipova
Quote:
Originally posted by B8trDude
I'm going to have to agree that the current (new) system needs to be adjusted. The use of the simple mean to "highlight" the "most helpful favorable" and the "most helpful critical reviews" is flawed. As noted, there ... more
About your #2.:

I think the only time 4-star reviews show up in the negative column is when a product has only received 4-star or 5-star reviews. Then they just default to "most negative" in the hilight, so the 4-star review shows up there. I think that works better than just waiting until someone votes a product 3 or fewer stars... look at the Omega's page, for example: because it's only gotten 4-star reviews, there's no way for the system to hilight favorable/critical reviews. If somebody came along and rated it 5-stars, then the 5-star review would be called "favorable" and the most helpful 4-star would be called "critical."

So that makes sense in these products with very few reviews. But I think it doesn't make sense in the general case---like in the case of the Hibiscus Swirl vibe I outlined before, the 3-star review should *not* be hidden just because somebody else gave a more-critical star-level review. Once there are reviews in every star-slot (or even three or four star-slots have reviews), the most helpful 5-or-4-star review should be hilighted as a favorable review, and the most helpful 3-2-or-1-star review should be hilighted as a critical review.

For #1., absolutely agreed. Weighted averages would help with this. Also, with a weighted average, a "useful" vote would start being a positive thing again instead of an "oh shoot, now every time a new review comes up it will overshadow my review!"
07/05/2011
Contributor: lanky lanky
im ok with it
07/24/2011