|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Separating the good and not so good reviews |
| 1-19 of 19 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 01-15-09 09:12am - 5782 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User  Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Separating the good and not so good reviews Here's one very few are going to agree with. I shall take Khan's reply as already given. I thought it would be a great idea to have 2 and 3 point reviews as separate from the rest. The reason for this is, I like to see the better reviews rather than the poor ones when selecting which site to join. Yes I can, and do, sift through them, but there are so many, to my mind, poor reviews that are virtually worthless, they get in the way of the worthwhile ones. I'm a relative newbie myself and don't want to discourage people. I would just like to see a place where you can see the better reviews all together. Sometimes you get a newbie doing about 10 reviews that all look the same, with little worthwhile information, and then the other reviews are buried underneath. I hope no one has brought this point up before. I have looked through the posts and haven't seen anyone suggest this. If I took some time I could probably type Khan's reply for him - hmm let's see - we don't wish to discourage any reviews, the difference between one and two point reviews is very narrow, most members want to look at all the reviews so having this policy would be pointless, logistically it would be very time consuming and difficult to do, we don't wish to distinguish between reviews, members wouldn't want us to distinguish between reviews and are capable of sorting through them, they want to look at all the reviews in the same place and to separate them would make the site even more complicated and difficult to access...Howzat? Edited on Jan 15, 2009, 09:16am | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 10:40am - 5782 days | #2 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Personally, I've always thought my reviews rated at least 100 stars apiece. I know the PU staff might not agree, but I'm the expert on my reviews, since I'm the one who wrote them. There are many reviews that don't really contribute a whole lot, but as TheSquirrel pointed out, PU doesn't want to discourage people from writing reviews, so all reviews are posted, unless there is some issue with falsification or some such. Anyway, I personally don't mind wading thru the reviews. Sometimes you get interesting or informative or humorous highlights that are worth reading, in addition to a strong recommendation or a strong disapproval of some site you might be interested in joining. As far as separating the good reviews from the bad reviews into a separate listing, it seems like an extra chore for the PU staff that is not really worthwhile. The PU staff does evaluate each review for approval or not, as well as assigning a rating of poor, good, or excellent to the review (that gives the review writer credit towards a raffle ticket). Maybe PU could include a brief notation by each review on the review rating, whether the PU staff gave the review itself 0, 1, 2, or 3 tickets, or 0, 1, 2 or 3 equivalent stars. | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 11:37am - 5782 days | #3 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
I suspect you're confusing points with raffle tickets. For the record .... Reviews can earn: 0 points (approved) 1 point (good) 2 points (excellent) There are no three point Reviews. Again, I suspect you're confusing 3 raffle tickets which are given for 2 point (excellent) reviews. You can see the official guidelines at: https://www.pornusers.com/profile_points.html One of the main things that sets apart Excellent Reviews from Good Reviews is that with the excellent, "Each pro/con should be explained and be useful for fellow readers" whereas a good review often just lists the pros/cons w/out much explanation. The breakout for raffle tickets earned is: 1 Ticket per "Approved" review. 2 Tickets per "Good" review. 3 Tickets per "Excellent" review. TheSquirrel, one thing you might try is to use the "Add to Favorites" for reviewers who's reviews you especially value. BTW, I do so love it when user try to speak for me ... not. ;) Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 11:41am - 5782 days | #4 | |
|
mbaya (0)
Suspended  Posts: 891 Registered: Jul 07, '08 Location: new jersey |
I personally like to read all the reviews. Sometimes even the poorly written ones have something useful. Another point is that if there is some degree of consistency, that is helpful, even if it is poorly written. | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 11:54am - 5782 days | #5 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Strange that Squirrel should bring up the subject just now because I was just about to start a similar thread after reading some of the latest practically useless reviews of some of the sites. Where are all the wise PU members of yore who would point out gently to a newcomer that their review was far from adequate. A few of you did it to me when I first tried my hand at writing one! :-) I was personally set off by the latest two reviews of "Girls Out West" where the reviewers gave an unrealistically low score because they didn't grasp what the site was all about, as well as providing next to no details. I won't give a "no trust" in connection with this, after all we were all newbies at one time but, to repeat myself, I do wish that more of our users would leave a gentle reply pointing out the deficiencies of a given review. One other point, some do go by the total points given to a site to help them make up their mind on whether to subscribe or not and all those reviews that are really nothing but comments in disguise help drag down the score and might just discourage them to take a closer look. Who knows, maybe your idea, squirrel, putting the best reviews (not by score but by details given) on top might not be a bad one. That would really encourage newbies to get their critical juices flowing. | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 12:09pm - 5782 days | #6 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Now you're just being akward. Come on admit it, I got it right. I knew exactly what you were going to say. Now you're refusing to say it just cos I got it right! In a way I was mixing up raffle tickets with points. What I really meant was that I wanted to separate the excellent and good reviews from the rest. As you say, excellent gets 3 points (sorry, tickets), and good gets 2. I would like to see these better reviews separate, but once again I know it aint gonna happen. Messmer pointed out a good example and also makes a good additional point. I know you don't want to discriminate, but just as a trust "no" nowadays has to at least carry some reasoning behind it, I would like to see exceptionally low or high points only being accepted if the review is considered "good." In fact, maybe this should apply before any marks are considered for a site's average. This is for the reason stated by Messmer. If someone makes a quick and hurried review, chances are he hasn't even checked out the site properly. This can unfairly weight for or against the reviewed site. | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 12:22pm - 5782 days | #7 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 02:33pm | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 12:25pm - 5782 days | #8 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
That's really stupid. You know Mickey Mouse can't serve another term as president because he's already served two. | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 12:39pm - 5782 days | #9 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Touche. | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 12:40pm - 5782 days | #10 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
By way of a reminder ... Those who haven't earned at least 5 points don't have their Review scores count towards the site's total score. As a rule, those who enter brief reviews with little "meat" don't earn point quickly ... thus, their scores don't really work against a site's score. Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 01:25pm - 5782 days | #11 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
If you take Ik2fireone's idea of "stars," which is really points earned on a review, then use the operative word "sort" in Wittyguy's "sorting out good from bad," maybe there's some potential. One could go to a site's page, then from the default chronological listing, chose to sort the reviews from most to least points earned. That could be handy. However, we have to keep in mind that these are still basically quantitative measures. A review could earn 3 points by having the requisite number of different statements made, pro and con, but still be lacking in really good specifics such as video and pic dimensions, actual number of models, actual number of vids and photosets, etc. So it would be worth it some of the time, but not necessarily always. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 01:48pm - 5782 days | #12 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Quoted by a big dog that drools. Lol. | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 02:34pm - 5782 days | #13 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Well, at least you're able to maintain perspective and a sense of humor. Good on you! I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 05:56pm - 5782 days | #14 | |
|
TheRizzo (0)
Active User Posts: 44 Registered: Jun 11, '08 |
A filter to see just those rated excellent or excellent and good reviews would be a handy feature to have. I'd definitely use that filter. | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 06:16pm - 5782 days | #15 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Thanks, I forgot when I made that point! | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 07:05pm - 5782 days | #16 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
There are a few reviews that aren't worth reading because they tell you nothing about the site. Now some of these are from newbies and I know how tough it is at first. I'd like the people that have writen those to maybe revisit their review and amend them. One of the big problem with priotizing reviews based on score as oppose to chronological order, is that people are more likely to read the first few ones and not bother with the others. That means that if a newer review is not very good, but brings a major negative change to that site, then we probably won't know about it because we are only looking at the top ones. Not all websites increase in quality with time. That's why I prefer the chronological order. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 01-15-09 08:21pm - 5782 days | #17 | |
|
RagingBuddhist (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07 |
Absolutely well put. (Since I like to change it somewhat frequently, note that my signature at the time of this message is "1.20.09 The End of an Error") Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity. | |
|
||
| 01-16-09 02:12am - 5781 days | #18 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Amen! And a REPEATED ERROR, at that! 2004 was just unbelievable. Can't wait 'til next time, btw. Americans don't learn from history. They don't think it matters. They forgot Vietnam, they forgot the Moral Majority, the whole lot of it. That's why Bush even had a chance in 2004. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 01-29-09 01:29am - 5768 days | #19 | |
|
ramscrota (0)
Suspended  Posts: 54 Registered: Jul 04, '07 Location: Geelong Vic Australia |
Re squirrel's original post: I'm relatively new to this site, and it took me a little while to get used to a site where people did such comprehensive reviews. I had previously come from a site like Sir Rodney's where SR makes the review, and contributers simply comment. The comments are almost invariably short, to the point ones like: "What a site! Tits bouncing everywhere, but the dude behind the camera is a jerk. He should shut up". or, "This site sux. I don't know why SR rated as high as he did - crap vids, craps pics, crap layout. Don't do your dough on this one." I'm trying now, in my reviews, to be comprehensive in my comments about navigation, vid & pics quality, type of scenes, etc. But I also try to include stuff about the erotic 'feel' of a site - allowing, of course, for the fact that tastes vary. So I think the challenge in writing a review is trying to create an accurate impression of a which leaves room for people's differences. eg: "This site is the greatest! You have to join" doesn't say much, whereas, "Attractive girls, bright surroundings, and sensitively and thoughtfully photographed. If you like young amateurs, I can recommend this site." says a whole lot more. Edited on Jan 29, 2009, 01:36am | |
|
||
| 1-19 of 19 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
