| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
The more important factor to me is info on whether the reviewer is a current member and how long a reviewer has been a member.
People who are reviewing sites where they haven't been a member for months aren't helping much, since good sites make significant changes - I remember one reviewer complaining about the DRM's at Danni.com weeks after that site had done away with DRM's.
Similarly, I personally don't find reviews all that helpful if the reviewer has been a member less than a month - they can give feedback on how much stuff a site has and the quality, but you don't really have the basis to comment on the consistency of updates or possibilities of technical problems if the reviewer just joined yesterday. To me that's the difference between this forum and the reviews by TBP's reviewers - I know that they're just dipping their toes in and giving their reviews from there.
Where this site can be more helpful is by having the feedback of people who have spent a good deal more time with a site.
|
06-16-07 12:31am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Boobs4ever (0)
|
If you should fallow a reveiw why fallow a old one when its a chances things has change, and its good to know. More Important latley when theres so many sites out there now
|
06-16-07 12:33am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Boobs4ever (0)
|
REPLY TO #1 - PinkPanther :
I have to agree. But I hope most ppl are members longer then the trail is when they rewievs a site.
|
06-16-07 12:41am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #1 - PinkPanther :
I understand what you're saying, particularly about consistency of updates and technical problem alerts. FYI, I've done reviews of sites as a "current member" for less than a month, but I've actually been a returning member, often several times. I read the membership status very literally, and what you said makes me think that maybe I shouldn't. Anyway, I avoid reviewing sites that I don't have a good familiarity with. (Don't want people complaining about my reviews.)
There are other factors, too, such as whether a site has been reviewed at all, or if it has a "stale" (e.g., over 1 year old) review in TBP. Then, even if I've been away for, say, 2-3 months, I might review a site so long as it keeps posting updates publicly. It's still going to be more up-to-date than other reviews, and at least PU members know that I'm not a current member. It's no different from the last "current member" review of site being 2-3 months old.
All that being said, I don't see a lot of care being put into the writing of the majority of the reviews here anyway, regardless of membership status. I get frustrated by "hi rez pics" and "updates often" and other statements that lack specifics.
Oh, well. Whattayagonna do? I've complained before about that, and I can't say it's done any good.
And we at least get some reviews that are very in-depth and might mention important things missed in a "toe-dipping" TBP review, as per the point you made on that.
|
06-16-07 02:47am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
nygiants03 (0)
|
Yes they are important because sites change all the time and add new options, however I believe an old review is better then none at all.
|
06-16-07 09:54am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
REPLY TO #4 - Drooler :
For people like me that look at membership status when reading reviews, it would definitely be helpful if you noted - returning member here - or something that let people know that your entire experience was not less than 1 month. I have seen notes like that in reviews, possibly in yours, and it was note-worthy to me.
In any forum that has a good amount of people posting, we're going to have people capable of, or interested in, writing solid in-depth reviews, and others who write reviews that are more "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down". The good thing about the comments is that we can always try to draw people out some more if we care to.
Thanks for your comments.
|
06-16-07 01:40pm
Reply To Message
|
7
|
exotics4me (0)
|
I think Pink Panther hits on something that I think is more important than just the date of the review. For example, most of the sites I have reviewed on here are sites that I have been on for either more than one month straight or sites I join every 3-4 months. Sometimes I forget to mention in my reviews that I've been a member before, unless they are noticable changes since the last time I was a member or on the other hand, no changes that could mean the site isn't improving itself much.
The best example of this is xisty, I went to it a few weeks after my subscription had ran out, they had changed the entire look of the site, better colors, better and more noticable search features etc..
|
06-16-07 09:18pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
pat362 (0)
|
I think the date is important only if the review is more than 6 months. Having been a member of many sites on and off, I've come to the conclusion that for most, the major changes are the adding of more content, and sometimes the methods of downloads. I can't think of one site, which having read an older review and a newer one That I was able to see a serious improvement/changes.
|
06-17-07 10:51am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
Gazette Risque (0)
|
Well yeah, if it was published like half a year ago they may have changed some stuff.
But it kind of bothers me when you write a review you can't add whether you were a member before or not. Of course you can put it in the bottom line part but that would take up a lot of space.
|
06-19-07 10:56am
Reply To Message
|
10
|
SnowDude (0)
|
I'll admit that most of my reviews are written when I've been a member of a site for less than a month, but since they are dated I know full well that I'm only providing a snapshot at that particular time. Yes, the review will eventually be outdated, but isn't that why PU will be removing reviews after a year?
As for the TBP reviews being more valid, I would actually think they are quite similar since I doubt all of them have been members of a particular site for a very long period. They do update their reviews, but only after awhile and there are plenty of sites I've reviewed that are way out of date. But with thousands of sites and 4 reviewers, isn't that just the nature of the beast and why PU exists?
All of us are "amateurs" in a sense and if I got paid to do this (which would be awesome) I'd spend even more time than I already do on each site. Short of that, no one expects any of us to be Siskel or Ebert since we all do the best we can. Right?
|
06-26-07 09:03pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
apoctom (0)
|
I figured that all reviews can only be reflective of the time at which they were written. That's why if it has been a while since the review, I will ask the reviewer any specific questions in a reply or leave a comment for the site. That way, current members could provide the latest information.
|
07-11-07 09:11am
Reply To Message
|
12
|
cblodg (0)
|
Things can change on a web site (sometimes in as little as a few days or a week). An older review doesn't help keep me informed on the current site.
|
09-23-07 07:07pm
Reply To Message
|
