| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
nygiants03 (0)
|
I put quality/length of reviews because I believe that is the reason behind trust rating. That the person gives many useful pros&cons and a good bottom line statement. If I believe the person has more then half good reviews I give them a positive trust rating, and if they give reviews that I find are not long enough or doesn't give good information, they get a negative review. I usually wait to give newbies a couple of chances as i once did not write the best reviews, I believe the person needs to get the hang of it first. Also I never trust or understand people that just join and write like 7 crappy reviews in a row. That really annoys me, as I think they are here just for a chance to get a raffle ticket. Also, i got to give props to snowdude as he had good reviews from the very start, and still does. He is the master of a good length quality review. He has received 2 points for every review he has ever written, which is quite impressive. i can tell who has good reviews by points relative to reviews. Exotics4me is another prime example as has only 1 review in which he received 1 point. I no longer write reviews at less I can give enough good information worthy of 2 points.
|
06-28-07 08:58am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Monahan (0)
|
I voted "other" because:
1- I'll measure a reviewer's comments against my own experience to see if the comments are fair and balanced.
2- I read the review to see if the reviewer tries to provide balance; for example, someone who prefers photo sites who reviews a video site gets my trust if he says so and tries to evaluate the site objectively anyway.
3- I compare the review content to that of the 4 TBP's reviewers to see if there are significant differences without explanation. (Yes, I trust the four TBP reviewers who have yet to steer me wrong.
|
06-28-07 09:24am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
sullivan (0)
|
I think the 'trust' rating is ambiguous - does it mean you don't think the reviewer is lying or making up facts? Does it mean that you have found his or her opinions square pretty well with your own? Or does it mean that in some hard to define way you like the reviews, even though you may disagree with them or find them less than totally reliable factually?
I've given 'trust' ratings for all three reasons.
|
06-28-07 11:46am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Khan (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #3 - sullivan :
LOL ...
Well, I can tell you how Trust Ratings were *designed* to be used and I can tell you how I've encouraged folks to use them; however, as you've mentioned, different people assign the ratings using their own criteria.
|
06-28-07 03:21pm
Reply To Message
|
5
|
sullivan (0)
|
Hey, Khan - Yeah, 'trust' is a rather flexible term, especially when you're talking in the abstract, and dealing with something on the internet. I wasn't sure where the definition of 'trust' you're referring to was, so I looked at the FAQ, and this looks like the key passage. I'm going to be criticize this, but just to point out that the ambiguity I mentioned is present even here:
"In essence, the Trust Rating is simply a way to allow the community to judge for themselves who's remarks are trustworthy based on that user's activity."
This basically says that 'trust' = 'trustworthy'. Well, sure; but that doesn't clarify things very much.
"In other words, can the reviewer's remarks be trusted to be accurate to what others will find if they visit a site."
Now "accurate" here means "factually correct" - but what are the facts we're talking about: the other users' personal, qualitative experience with the site (how good, worthwhile, or erotic is it), or the actual, hard, quantitative data about the site (price, number of models, etc.)? And if "trust" means "accuracy," why not just call it "accuracy," or maybe "reliability"?
Anyway, just some food for thought. Is there a definitive discussion of the trust rating somewhere that I haven't found?
Keep up the good work.
|
06-28-07 06:47pm
Reply To Message
|
6
|
Khan (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #5 - sullivan :
No, there's not been a definitive discussion but the issue has been touched upon a number of times since the Trust Ratings were initially added.
You can find some of the discussions at ...
https://www.pornusers.com/replies_view.html?id=3170
Reply #9
https://www.pornusers.com/announcements.html
Trust Ratings Added to PornUsers
February 20th, 2007
If memory serves, it's also come up in a number of poll questions.
Now, to try and address your specific comments ...
Looking at the clip you took from the FAQ ... "In essence, the Trust Rating is simply a way ..." When you continue, you see we took a step to define the "trustworthy" with the next sentence ... "In other words, can the reviewer's remarks be trusted to be accurate to what others will find if they visit a site." (emphasis added)
Now, your comment speculates that "accurate" is to be read as, "factually correct" yet I'd offer that in this context, "accurate" would be more along the lines of "matching" or "similar" ... thus continuing the emphasis on Trust Ratings not being a personal judgement of someone's character but rather, how well their reviews give the reader the info they need to make an informed decision.. Since so many of the items found in a good review are subjective, "factually correct" would apply only to a small percentage of what's covered and therefore, would have limited applicability in this context.
As I was explaining to someone this morning ...
Trust Ratings are meant to be a judgement on how well your review will reflect what the user (who is casting the vote) will see if they visit the site you reviewed. In other words, it's like making the statement, "I trust that the review I'm reading here (yours) will be pretty close to what I'll notice when I visit." Obviously, a NO Trust Rating reflects the opposite.
But again, this is how they were *designed* to be used and how I encourage Users to apply them. How they're actually applied is a personal decision of each User.
|
06-28-07 07:43pm
Reply To Message
|
7
|
sullivan (0)
|
REPLY TO #6 - Khan :
I see; you're lumping all the various criteria - qualitative, quantitative, or whatever - all together. That makes sense.
Looking over some of the trust ratings and accompanying discussion, I see that most people get upset when they receive a 'No' trust without any comment. I think it would improve the system if there was a way of insuring that no one could give a 'No' without also adding a comment or discussion or some kind of reason for it (a pop-up box that needed to have a minimum of twenty characters, say). The 'Yes' ratings help other users judge who is trustworthy, but the 'No' ratings ought to also give the reviewer some feedback - some sense of how they could improve. For if you look at the 'No's', only a few people are getting them because they are jerks or trolls; most people get them because there is something really lacking from one or more reviews. And they should be told what that is.
Cheers.
|
06-28-07 08:29pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
jd1961 (0)
|
The "trust" ratings make me NOT want to post reviews. How you can permit anonymous no explanation "trust" ratings is beyond me. I look for someone who has obviously been to the site, and is obviously not a shill.
|
06-28-07 08:56pm
Reply To Message
|
9
|
RagingBuddhist (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #8 - jd1961 :
I'm with JD - the anonymity of a trust rating is a bit of a curiosity to me too. Someone obviously didn't like something I wrote in one of the reviews I've written and I'd love to know why they feel they can't trust me. Good or bad, I've only written about how I feel about a site I've joined - in as clear and concise terms as possible. Disagree with my take on a site? Fair enough. But it is just my opinion...
|
07-03-07 01:14pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
apoctom (0)
|
I'm with jd and the Buddhist: anonymity is good for everything except reviews and trust ratings. We can't trust anonymous reviews since we don't know about the reviewer and the same applies for the trust ratings that are reviewing the user.
|
07-11-07 09:06am
Reply To Message
|
11
|
Schnitzel (0)
|
For me, the review length/quality pays a big part.
If the reviewer has just written a barely approved review to get a point, what's to say it's going to be accurate?
I'd also compare the review against my own experience If I'd been a member of the site, which would have a big effect on whether or not I'd trust the user.
|
07-12-07 03:55am
Reply To Message
|
12
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
YEAH BABY!! I want it to be known about what I stand for in porn!! I don't care if people have to use my name in their comments or reviews as an example of whatever... I am here to fight for trust and BODY CUMSHOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!
|
07-23-07 07:04am
Reply To Message
|
13
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
By the way folks, my name is PINCHE KANKUN - pronounced PINCHE CANCUN, as in CANCUN MEXICO!!!
|
07-23-07 07:05am
Reply To Message
|
