Things that work and things that don't...

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Canibul

... the way I read it, you cant state a bad opinion on any product that doesnt have its own website.
Does that make sense?

NOPE ~ your reading of the guidlines doesn't make sense to me.

All we (or at least I) ask is that reviews be a fair and dispassionate FACTUAL evaluation. I'd hope that all responses, including Manufacturer, exhibit the same attitude.

[Canibul]

Well, now I cant find the original post. But it was in the last section, about not putting negative opinions in unless the manufacturers email address was included so that they could respond.

How do YOU read that?

[GordMay]

My apologies Canibul, I believe you’re right !!!

By way of this comment, I’d recommend revising the “directive” to become a suggestion reworded to begin “It’s recommended that threads include an email ...”

The rules < http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ead.php?t=5514 > conclude with:
”Threads must include an email contact for the vendor, or manufacturer being reviewed so that we may contact that vendor or manufacturer and provide them an opportunity to respond.”
Which was an editorial addition to my original draft proposal.

[Canibul]

Thats good.

Or even something like "threads must include enough contact information about the vendor or manufacturer...etc."

I have made the following revision:
Threads must include an email or other contact info for the vendor, or manufacturer being reviewed so that we may contact that vendor or manufacturer and provide them an opportunity to respond.

[rsn48]

Well, here's one scenario you haven't thought about I bet. I inhabit a number of different forums; one is the Atlas forum for model railroaders; I have a layout don't cha know.

Well this one chap who is one of those incredible "keeners" wrote a review of a new N scale steam engine that came out. He is the type to not only run the engine but take it apart to see how well it is built inside, type of engine, how the wheels (trucks) work, etc.

He gave the new engine less than a great review, not bad but certainly not good either. About three days latter, the president of the company came on and reamed him out publicly. You now some heads of companies are really computer illiterate still, believe it or not, and more even internet illiterate, again believe it or not. This particular president hadn't really thought through what he had just done. He had gone "over board" on one of the forum members - who was considered quite responsible by the membership - and he had done this with many many hundreds using the forum. It profoundly affected his companies reputation by coming into a forum and walking all over the member.

Model railroading is a surprisingly passionate affair; you should see the numbers of battles to understand what I mean. What has made the Atlas forum interesting is that over time companies have come in - on a positive note - and worked with the members to try and improve their products, or offer new products.

This marriage of companies on a public forum - "Atlas" - made for a more interesting place to be. Consequently, in model railroading the Atlas forum has become the most active and thus the most popular forum around. This is much akin to a guy writing a letter to the editor complaining about a problem and having the company responding to the complaint in magazines.

[alanperry]

KN, I don't beleive that I objected anywhere in my post to the idea of a forum for product reviews, in fact I think it's a good idea. What I do object to (and I was very specific in my post) is the idea that you or anyone else can make any kind of accurate assesment of the fairness of a review. Further there is no way that you can determine whether a writer actually owns or did own the product being written about. That is unenforceable and thus needless, as is the injunction that it be "Fair". I think that as a general rule this board is well informed and well administered. However I do think that you should forget fairness as a criteria for posting a review. As I said previously there is no way to judge that accurately and it really is of little value in the long run.

An example: If I write a scathing commentary on a movie as a reviewer it is understood by the vast reading public that that review is AN OPINION PIECE, not meant to be factual but rather "informative". Many may disagree with my assesment but that doesn't make my "rant" any less informative or important.

I see this new product review forum in much the same way. What we will be reading is OPINION, not fact. Some posts may be more '"factual" than others and some may be all opinion. But in the final analysis no one would be well served by this board if they were led to beleive that the postings in ANY forum were any more than just one persons opinion.

There is a reason that magazines, newspapers and other forms of supposedly objective reporting have editors and fact checkers...to insure that articles ARE factual. Any attemept on the part of the Admin staff of this board to make rules that would lead anyone to believe that what they will be reading in the product review forum is "factual and fair" is irresponsible.

Also, you took my use of "Colorful" language to mean cursing and obscenties. That is not what I meant by that term. I mean language that may be more pointed and scathing in it's criticism, words that you wouldn't necessarily hear or read in the standard press. Words like: Faulty, shoddy, crap,inexcusable design by a team of apparently out of work tax collectors...you get the idea.

In the end I just feel that you have made certain guidlines and rules that will have a chilling effect on people really speaking thier minds and offering us an unvarnished opinion. And ultimately you will not be able to enforce some rules as pointed out above. Also if you are going to "play fast and loose" with the rules then why have them at all? That statement, while posssibly meant to assuage, really only highlights the fact that the administration of the rules and guidelines could be so arbitrary as to be useless.

I applaud the idea, it's the execution that I think needs a bit more thought and discussion.

Alan Perry

[Pblais]

Rather than limits it might be better to look at reviews in another way. If the review you write can't be used to generate discussion in the forum then it has little value here. It's not that every post here has to enlighten the world but it is hoped all posts can generate and invite good discussion even if it just starts out as a question.

That is what the goal is. We say there are limits to keep the place welcome to new people and long term members both. When posts start right off as self serving, antagonistic, or demeaning to others then it does not serve the interests of the members in good standing. It's not how you start a discussion.

It could be argued it is subjective. The other way to look at it is we expect members to think about what they post before they post it. It the rules we state when you join. We don't have any qualifications to join this forum other than you should want to come here for discussion. You can just listen if you like and you can participate in any discussion you feel you have additional information or additional questions.

The bottom line is you can't hijack Cruisers Forum for your own personal purposes. Posts with hate, revenge, spam, and violence are redirected to the trash can. To be honest it's the revenge posts that seem to cause the most controversy.

I don't think anyone wants us to stop removing the cell phone spam ads or all the other fun things we all have in our mail boxes and would rather we didn't receive or see here. We might make a mistake but we will be here the next day to take our lumps and issue the apology.

[exranger]

I think this is a great forum, but like the site moderators, etc., have said, it's not a place to vent and rant ad nauseum, it is a place to open a dialog about a product or vendor. Maybe get something done.

[hellosailor]

Paul-
"We really can't get Dr Phil to work here for free."

But, if Dr. Phil really KNEW there was an entire global cult of people who liked to stand in cold wet spray and gleefully toss money into the ocean, SURELY he would feel compelled to come help them?<G>

[Brent Swain]

Lets just be honest about it and call this things that work, discussions on things that don't work not allowed. When things that don't work become a matter of life and death, then let em die.
Brent

[markpj23]

Maybe we can reset this thread? 90% is a discussion of the rules... maybe post the guidelines in a header for the thread and then let's get down to the real "What works and what Doesn't work" info we all hope to read?

[Pblais]

If you want to have a thread for something that "works / does not work" then I would suggest you make a new thread for each "thing". I would not want to read through 2,000 different things all discussed in the same thread.

If it about a specific item then put that item in the subject. It will then attract all those interested in learning about them.

Being specific really helps and should some new user that comes along and searches for a specific topic find a whole thread about it.

Maybe it's not always very specific but but a topic called "Engines" might be better if it started with say "Gasoline Engines" or "Small Outboard Engines" or "Honda 2HP 4 stroke engines". This thread maybe has already served it's purpose. We can create as many threads as we want to.

Any user new or old should feel free to start a thread on something they think is interesting. If it belongs someplace better we have ways to make that happen on your behalf. Staff will move threads that are started in the wrong place. A new thread is better than drifting an existing one off in another direction. This thread is now up to 76 postings so not a lot of people will want to follow a topic that far if it wander around as much as this one has. Moderators can split and move a thread but it makes it easier if we all think along that idea in the first place.

Originally Posted by alanperry

KN, I don't beleive that I objected anywhere in my post to the idea of a forum for product reviews, in fact I think it's a good idea. What I do object to (and I was very specific in my post) is the idea that you or anyone else can make any kind of accurate assesment of the fairness of a review. Further there is no way that you can determine whether a writer actually owns or did own the product being written about. That is unenforceable and thus needless, as is the injunction that it be "Fair". I think that as a general rule this board is well informed and well administered. However I do think that you should forget fairness as a criteria for posting a review. As I said previously there is no way to judge that accurately and it really is of little value in the long run.

An example: If I write a scathing commentary on a movie as a reviewer it is understood by the vast reading public that that review is AN OPINION PIECE, not meant to be factual but rather "informative". Many may disagree with my assesment but that doesn't make my "rant" any less informative or important.

I see this new product review forum in much the same way. What we will be reading is OPINION, not fact. Some posts may be more '"factual" than others and some may be all opinion. But in the final analysis no one would be well served by this board if they were led to beleive that the postings in ANY forum were any more than just one persons opinion.

There is a reason that magazines, newspapers and other forms of supposedly objective reporting have editors and fact checkers...to insure that articles ARE factual. Any attemept on the part of the Admin staff of this board to make rules that would lead anyone to believe that what they will be reading in the product review forum is "factual and fair" is irresponsible.

Also, you took my use of "Colorful" language to mean cursing and obscenties. That is not what I meant by that term. I mean language that may be more pointed and scathing in it's criticism, words that you wouldn't necessarily hear or read in the standard press. Words like: Faulty, shoddy, crap,inexcusable design by a team of apparently out of work tax collectors...you get the idea.

In the end I just feel that you have made certain guidlines and rules that will have a chilling effect on people really speaking thier minds and offering us an unvarnished opinion. And ultimately you will not be able to enforce some rules as pointed out above. Also if you are going to "play fast and loose" with the rules then why have them at all? That statement, while posssibly meant to assuage, really only highlights the fact that the administration of the rules and guidelines could be so arbitrary as to be useless.

I applaud the idea, it's the execution that I think needs a bit more thought and discussion.

Alan Perry

Alan, all good points, but again, I refer to my comment we are only human, and have to make decisions based on the available information. As you can see from Brent's posts, a review can easily turn ugly if not checked. I understand that Brent had an unpleasant customer service experience. I am so impressed by the efforts Robin has gone to here (Truly going out on a limb speaking on behalf of a company that he is an employee of). We will never know for sure if Brent is a difficult customer, or if he just managed to catch one employee of a vendor that did not have "people skills". All we can do is totry to keep this reviews civil, and let the reader decide. But, often, our efforts to keep the discussion civil are what are being construed as censorship. I agree we are not the ultimate authority on right and wrong, but we do have the leadership responsibilities for this forum. As such, we will make those judgments. Right or wrong, they need to be made, or soon, we will have far more flame wars than discussions.
Brent, I think your concerns are exactly along the lines of what the new forum is designed for, and I have copied all relating posts to a thread in that forum. Again, let the reader decide.