Finally, quantity matters. If only a couple of reviews seem especially positive or negative, your spider sense should tingle. On the other hand, dozens or hundreds of reviews reduce the effects of self-interested postings.
Listen: the old-fashioned system of professional critics wasn’t foolproof, either. You never knew what conflict-of-interest shenanigans were at play. At least in the Web 2.0 world, the crowd’s voice generally drowns out the solo voices of the untrustworthy. You’re left with a pile of opinions that contains more truth than falsehood.
This article was originally published with the title Critical Mass.
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentRandom sampling. You want to randomly pick people who bought an item and ask them to review it, that's to avoid self-selection bias. Also, you want to let people know if the number of reviews is statistically sufficient large. Most cases I know of, it isn't even remotely close by. (A book sold 100,000 copies, how many reviews do you need to have a reliable judgement for how satisfied the average customer is. Statistics basics.) It is unlikely you'll get enough randomly sampled reviews on the huge amount of things to review. The conclusion you should draw is: don't trust online reviews.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlong with the other suggestions mentioned, perhaps site owners should still have use for that skilled solo critic, but working for their site instead if only to set a recognisibably impartial benchmark review, which would by comparison make the hyperbole of bogus, self-promoting reviews stand out more clearly. Also whether reviewers use their own names, or not, a system for grading their reviewing abilities, after they have done a number of reviews of different products, may assist others in ascertaining the credibility of the reviewer, based on their past reviews meeting a median pass quality based on a favourable comparison with the majority review grade of the particular service, site or product etc. being reviewed. The only sure way to ensure the continuity of the online review is for a vast majority of individuals to try out places based on online reviews they read then report back with their own reviews of the online reviews to see if they were credible or false. That will bulid trust in the online review, so much so that even if an owner plugs his own site, his business will at least have to meet a high percentage standard of the plug he is pushing if he wants to continue in business, and not suffer from many bad reviews himself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry for the typo:- it should read "recognisably" or "recognizably".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile crowd reviewing may average out to the 'real' and exclude outliers, how is one sure that the average opinion matches one's own tastes? Customer restaurant reviews can be snarky, especially when the reviewer has no experience with food preparation and restaurant management. 'Professional' reviewers usually visit a restaurant at least twice before writing a review, but peer, grass-roots reviewers can throw out an opinion at any time. For book reviews, I prefer professional reviews by people who know the author's work, or know the social or historical context of the book. Facebook has reduced us to simply 'like' or unlike without nuance and context.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisheh...comments on an article about comments. Just had to comment: uh, no comment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a non-scientist, I'm curious as to why the author paints negatively the "solo voices of the untrustworthy". Isn't that an assumption? I.e. that these voices are untrustworthy? If someone had a habit of giving very high and/or very low scores to something (e.g. music or movies), and I found that their tastes co-incided with mine often, then I would be more likely to try something that they recommend which I might not have ventured to try that myself, as a result of my own biases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimilarly, the author seems to idealise the mainstream...they want to be in agreement with them. From memory, the movie "The dark knight" has one of the highest every ratings at IMDB...but I'm not THAT keen on it...same goes for "Titanic".
With music, sometimes if I listened to the mainstream, I would not find pleasure in albums that the self-appointed guardians of that music hate...e.g. in certain genres, some albums are reviled by the so-called 'real' fans of that band...and I've found that I LOVE those albums.
Sorry, I'm behind in my reading. Actually let my SciAm subscription lapse. Flog me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHail, Mr. Pogue!! You made it through this entire article without using the botch "e-pinions"!!
BRILLIANT!!!!