Its amazing how many vendors....
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@IRJ said:
@Minion-Queen said:
@thanksaj remember it was the fact that you wouldn't let it go that was the issue.
Sometimes its better to just let someting like that go. There is no sure fire way to win something like that. I dont think Quorum is signing people up by the thousands or anything. You said all the reviews were prety much local , right?
At one point, when they had around 100 reviews, I went through and looked at the Spiceheads who had submitted reviews. Out of the 100ish people, there were less than 5 that were Poblano or higher in spicy rating. Almost all were Pimento or Sonora. Sean argued that some people had been on SW for years. The fact was it was people who had created accounts years ago, never posted not even once, and then did reviews. So because they had an old, unused account, it gave them validity? No. Contributions to the community gives you validity.
To be fair it took me ~2 years to actually make a post on SW. Prior to that I was lurking, although I created a new account when I did start to post.
Lurking doesn't really mean much. If you aren't contributing, then no value is being added. Even if those people who all posted Quorum reviews lurked daily for years, which a large majority were brand new accounts (could tell by date created on the account), unless they are adding to a discussion, what does their opinion matter?
-
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@IRJ said:
@Minion-Queen said:
@thanksaj remember it was the fact that you wouldn't let it go that was the issue.
Sometimes its better to just let someting like that go. There is no sure fire way to win something like that. I dont think Quorum is signing people up by the thousands or anything. You said all the reviews were prety much local , right?
At one point, when they had around 100 reviews, I went through and looked at the Spiceheads who had submitted reviews. Out of the 100ish people, there were less than 5 that were Poblano or higher in spicy rating. Almost all were Pimento or Sonora. Sean argued that some people had been on SW for years. The fact was it was people who had created accounts years ago, never posted not even once, and then did reviews. So because they had an old, unused account, it gave them validity? No. Contributions to the community gives you validity.
To be fair it took me ~2 years to actually make a post on SW. Prior to that I was lurking, although I created a new account when I did start to post.
Lurking doesn't really mean much. If you aren't contributing, then no value is being added. Even if those people who all posted Quorum reviews lurked daily for years, which a large majority were brand new accounts (could tell by date created on the account), unless they are adding to a discussion, what does their opinion matter?
They are customers. Of course I agree that the Quorum rep shouldn't have called them "Spiceheads" he could have easily called them IT Pros and still linked to the review page.
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@IRJ said:
@Minion-Queen said:
@thanksaj remember it was the fact that you wouldn't let it go that was the issue.
Sometimes its better to just let someting like that go. There is no sure fire way to win something like that. I dont think Quorum is signing people up by the thousands or anything. You said all the reviews were prety much local , right?
At one point, when they had around 100 reviews, I went through and looked at the Spiceheads who had submitted reviews. Out of the 100ish people, there were less than 5 that were Poblano or higher in spicy rating. Almost all were Pimento or Sonora. Sean argued that some people had been on SW for years. The fact was it was people who had created accounts years ago, never posted not even once, and then did reviews. So because they had an old, unused account, it gave them validity? No. Contributions to the community gives you validity.
To be fair it took me ~2 years to actually make a post on SW. Prior to that I was lurking, although I created a new account when I did start to post.
Lurking doesn't really mean much. If you aren't contributing, then no value is being added. Even if those people who all posted Quorum reviews lurked daily for years, which a large majority were brand new accounts (could tell by date created on the account), unless they are adding to a discussion, what does their opinion matter?
They are customers. Of course I agree that the Quorum rep shouldn't have called them "Spiceheads" he could have easily called them IT Pros and still linked to the review page.
If the people had put in their reviews a disclaimer they'd been asked to share a testimonial on Quorum's behalf and at their request, I actually would have been fine with the reviews. But without that disclaimer, it changes the way most people will see it.
-
@thanksaj
Sales People tend to lie or get as close to lying as they possible can. Its just the way the world works
-
@IRJ said:
@thanksaj
Sales People tend to lie or get as close to lying as they possible can. Its just the way the world works
And the fake reviews serve to do nothing but help enhance that lie by adding appeared validity to their statements.
-
@thanksaj said:
@Nic said:
Actually back when I was CM I did catch a bunch of stuff like this - we'd usually delete them. You can report the reviews that you find that are suspicious. There are ones that are semi-legit though, where the vendor asks their happy clients to go post on Spiceworks.
And that's exactly the ones I have the biggest issue with. Bogus is bogus for the fakes ones. However, my BIGGEST thing that got me banned from the backup group for awhile is that Quorum has admitted (not online) to asking their happy clients to go on SW and then review the products they use for them. If those people who joined also posted even a couple times elsewhere, I wouldn't be upset. But what you get are literally DOZENS of people who go on, review Quorum, and disappear. Then, you get Kevin going around saying how they got 100+ 5-star reviews from Spiceheads on their vendor page for this product or that, but fails to mention that almost none of those except one or two, literally, are from people above Anahiem. It's skews the results and distorts the truth. Reviews are trusted because someone posts as a Spicehead and earns a reputation. These reviews may be from real experience, but they are from fake Spiceheads, and therefore don't matter.
That's how the review system works though. That's not skewed, that's legitimately what SW review results look like. The average Spicehead is a Pimiento. If you want a review system weighted on believability, you are using the wrong platform.
-
@coliver said:
They are customers. Of course I agree that the Quorum rep shouldn't have called them "Spiceheads" he could have easily called them IT Pros and still linked to the review page.
Problem is, Spiceworks calls anyone who has ever made an account a Spicehead, most people don't even know that an account was ever created or that a community even exists. So Quorum, getting people to sign in and actually contribute something, is dealing with Spiceheads above and beyond the average and far, far beyond Spiceworks' own definition. So getting upset with Quorum isn't fair. They didn't do anything wrong.
-
@thanksaj said:
If the people had put in their reviews a disclaimer they'd been asked to share a testimonial on Quorum's behalf and at their request, I actually would have been fine with the reviews. But without that disclaimer, it changes the way most people will see it.
But it is the people not taking the time to understand the review process who are wrong there. If people want to mislead themselves, that's not Quorum's fault. They are using the system as designed.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
@Nic said:
Actually back when I was CM I did catch a bunch of stuff like this - we'd usually delete them. You can report the reviews that you find that are suspicious. There are ones that are semi-legit though, where the vendor asks their happy clients to go post on Spiceworks.
And that's exactly the ones I have the biggest issue with. Bogus is bogus for the fakes ones. However, my BIGGEST thing that got me banned from the backup group for awhile is that Quorum has admitted (not online) to asking their happy clients to go on SW and then review the products they use for them. If those people who joined also posted even a couple times elsewhere, I wouldn't be upset. But what you get are literally DOZENS of people who go on, review Quorum, and disappear. Then, you get Kevin going around saying how they got 100+ 5-star reviews from Spiceheads on their vendor page for this product or that, but fails to mention that almost none of those except one or two, literally, are from people above Anahiem. It's skews the results and distorts the truth. Reviews are trusted because someone posts as a Spicehead and earns a reputation. These reviews may be from real experience, but they are from fake Spiceheads, and therefore don't matter.
That's how the review system works though. That's not skewed, that's legitimately what SW review results look like. The average Spicehead is a Pimiento. If you want a review system weighted on believability, you are using the wrong platform.
Not too many people do reviews. The average person has done 10 or fewer reviews, and I mean out of the people who have posted on 10 or more different threads. People post because they enjoy conversation, or have a question. People don't get the same feeling/result from a review. They either do it out of the goodness of their heart or cause they are pissed at how bad a product is.
-
@thanksaj said:
And the fake reviews serve to do nothing but help enhance that lie by adding appeared validity to their statements.
The way that you described them, there is nothing fake about them. You might not like the review system, I sure don't, but the vendor and the reviewers are completely legit as you are describing their behaviour.
-
@thanksaj said:
Not too many people do reviews. The average person has done 10 or fewer reviews, and I mean out of the people who have posted on 10 or more different threads. People post because they enjoy conversation, or have a question. People don't get the same feeling/result from a review. They either do it out of the goodness of their heart or cause they are pissed at how bad a product is.
One could say that that skews the reviews just as much. What makes one type of review more or less legitimate than another? It's anonymous, worthless reviews with no oversight, no weighting and very little visibility. Get upset that the system sucks, try to change it, move on, whatever. But don't get upset with innocent parties using the system as intended.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
And the fake reviews serve to do nothing but help enhance that lie by adding appeared validity to their statements.
The way that you described them, there is nothing fake about them. You might not like the review system, I sure don't, but the vendor and the reviewers are completely legit as you are describing their behaviour.
I find it ethically wrong to ask them to join the website simply to write reviews and then boast about all the Spiceheads that use Quorum and love it. That's Quorum gaming the system.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
Not too many people do reviews. The average person has done 10 or fewer reviews, and I mean out of the people who have posted on 10 or more different threads. People post because they enjoy conversation, or have a question. People don't get the same feeling/result from a review. They either do it out of the goodness of their heart or cause they are pissed at how bad a product is.
One could say that that skews the reviews just as much. What makes one type of review more or less legitimate than another? It's anonymous, worthless reviews with no oversight, no weighting and very little visibility. Get upset that the system sucks, try to change it, move on, whatever. But don't get upset with innocent parties using the system as intended.
The system is broken, I agree.
-
@scottalanmiller The system is broken, but then again, so is SW.
-
@thanksaj said:
I find it ethically wrong to ask them to join the website simply to write reviews and then boast about all the Spiceheads that use Quorum and love it. That's Quorum gaming the system.
The system is designed as a game. Gaming it is the intended behaviour. Don't hate the playa, hate the game. If you don't like the rules of the game, you have to either stop playing or change the rules. Don't be upset that people are willing to play it as is.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
I find it ethically wrong to ask them to join the website simply to write reviews and then boast about all the Spiceheads that use Quorum and love it. That's Quorum gaming the system.
The system is designed as a game. Gaming it is the intended behaviour. Don't hate the playa, hate the game. If you don't like the rules of the game, you have to either stop playing or change the rules. Don't be upset that people are willing to play it as is.
I was just going to post something like this... but that quick typing thing wins out every time.
-
The game has bugs in it, and the current devs don't seem to care. We need new devs!
-
@thanksaj said:
The game has bugs in it, and the current devs don't seem to care. We need new devs!
huh?
-
@IRJ said:
@thanksaj said:
The game has bugs in it, and the current devs don't seem to care. We need new devs!
huh?
SW is the game.
-
@thanksaj said:
@IRJ said:
@thanksaj said:
The game has bugs in it, and the current devs don't seem to care. We need new devs!
huh?
SW is the game.
Ok. I missed SAMs post
