Talk:Review site
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I changed "10" ratings to be accurate to "100" because that is what it says on the website cited. I think it was a typo.
Hammer v. Amazon.com is an example of a lawsuit over a review site.
No mention of algorithms used to calculate ratings? Sites that try to actually be accurate? — Omegatron 18:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've created a new kind of review site based on mediawiki that you might find interesting: You can find it at this link. What do you guys think?
I haven't seen anything like this before so I pretty much went and set a site up. I could always use expert advice. I'm trying to address the issue of commercial bias by providing an open document format where consumers and companies have equal say in the review content.
The way I see it the reviews will be the result of an ongoing discussion, containing structured information representing the viewpoints of the participants... Kind of like wikipedia for commercial products and services.202.72.171.153 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rating and Review professional association
I was surprised to see that my edits from Feb 15 were deleted, and even more surprisingly marked as "vandalism."
The fact that operators of reviews sites are concerned about rising criticism is certainly relevant to this article, and was supported by a citation from the "USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review," a very credible source.
The external link to an industry trade association that provides consumer, business, and legal information regarding review sites is very relevant to the article and would be of interest to anyone researching this subject. (That is the purpose of wikipedia, isn't it?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wygk (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Review spam
An anonymous editor (with no other articles edited under that IP) has made some useful contributions and clean-up, but in the process managed to add five or six references to the marginally notable (and unheard of on wikipedia) site viewpoints.com. That new service may or may not be notable enough for its own article - there is some real press, and they are in the A round stage with a real VC company. Such start-ups, if they don't completely flop, usually get enough interest, success, and press to be notable here soon after funding. But it's hardly worth that many mentions in an article devoted to an encyclopedic treatment of the subject of review sites. If we mention viewpoints five times we have about a hundred other websites that also deserve five mentions each.... It looks a little like COI or spam but I can't assume that. Sometimes people just come across something that's really cool or new and decide to add it all over an article. But let's keep things in balance, okay? Wikidemo (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
