| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, I understand that people are excited about an impending new product release and they want to show support for Paizo. But posting a 5 star review of something you (1) don't have, or (2) have had for 15 minutes, makes the review system much less useful for its intended purpose. So please, cut it out.
I'm inclined to agree, actually. Extremely vague reviews that mention only skimming the book, or worse, not even having the book/pdf (whether these reviews are positive or negative) aren't helpful in the least.
Of course, there isn't all that much Paizo can do about it. They have to be extremely judicious with editing or deleting reviews, because they could get into a lot of trouble for that. From what I understand, they only change reviews if the review is completely unrelated the the product (like a five star review explaining how cool batman is) or breaks any posting rules (making threats, being excessively profane, etc.)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have definitely bought a product solely because of an in-depth one-star review before.
If a reviewer's post is rife with spelling and grammatical errors, snap judgements, and philistine logic, I may enjoy a product that they hate.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
1-star reviews complaining about shipping damage, 5-star reviews based on anticipation, etc. are both disservices to fellow customers and to the publisher. Looking at some products I've reviewed, I'm kind of surprised to see that there's no option to flag reviews as there is for forum posts.
Anyway, it might be useful if Paizo's review system more closely mirrored Amazon's wherein customers can mark whether they find a review helpful or not. One of the most useful features I've seen there is the ability to view the most helpful critical reviews. A similar feature here would be nice.
|
The review that got the OP going was obviously the product of a surge of excitement someone with access to the internet posted from Gencon. Given the environment of a convention, I can see how anyone would (a)get carried away with excitement and (b) not have the time to read the entire book carefully before posting a review.
Given all of that, I think the OP could have replaced the rebuke with a request to update the review when that becomes possible.
In more normal conditions I'd be inclined to agree - some reviews are better as posts in the baseboards. Posting a review is about throwing your weight as a customer to try and ensure that stuff you like will sell more and stuff you don't like will sell less - that way you hopefully get more stuff you like. Just blurting out something that nobody cares about (like a late shipment issue) is not only useless to other customers, it's also sometimes annoying to read.
I'll repeat, though, that I do find the discussed case an exception.
Heh, I actually concur that a "review" should not be posted until the full measure of the material being reviewed has been covered by the reviewer, but still the tone of this thread sounds humorously like "stop being excited dammit!"
Heh, I actually concur that a "review" should not be posted until the full measure of the material being reviewed has been covered by the reviewer, but still the tone of this thread sounds humorously like "stop being excited dammit!"
GET OFF MY LAWN!
For the record, I don't know that I've ever read every single word of a (gaming) book I've reviewed, nor do I expect others to have done so. But what I think would be useful for all involved is if folks refrained from posting a review until after having done more than skim the PDF.
I also believe that one-star "rage" reviews are equally useless...it just wasn't one of those that caught my eye this morning.
Finally, when I started this thread, I thought the reviewer in question didn't have the book at all, and had written a "review" sight-unseen (which I have also seen here). But based on subsequent comments on other threads, it turns out that was NOT the case, so bad on me for jumping to that conclusion. Had I not done so, I doubt I would have posted in the first place.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having just skimmed through this thread I give it 5 Narfs. The juxtaposition of the social construct interposed with the negative vector of the narrative has hints of oak and a fruity flavour that I would serve with a light summery meal like Sauerkraut and Bratwurst. It's sound is reminiscent of a young Bob Dylan's Speed Metal days and the Authors goal in the eighth innings eclipses anything Tiger Woods could do on the court.
Having just skimmed through this thread I give it 5 Narfs. The juxtaposition of the social construct interposed with the negative vector of the narrative has hints of oak and a fruity flavour that I would serve with a light summery meal like Sauerkraut and Bratwurst. It's sound is reminiscent of a young Bob Dylan's Speed Metal days and the Authors goal in the eighth innings eclipses anything Tiger Woods could do on the court.
I am a fairly well known reviewer. I get a lot of products before the release date.
I get some (though by far not all) products before release date, but I make it a policy to read every page - multiple times, and usually playtest crunch if I'm not sure whether it works as intended.
Just in case anyone's interested - if you ever see a review of mine on release day, that's because I got the file at least 2 weeks prior to release.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really like to see a radio-button form for each review. It would have options like: "Don't own/Service Review", "Skimmed", "In-depth reading", and "used in play". The result would be displayed at the top of the review.
I know that for products I purchase on Paizo, I'll see a message stating that I purchased it on such-and-such date. Therefore, it should be possible to list a "Paizo-verified purchase" on the reviews of those who bought a product thru the Paizo webstore or via subscription.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another option is the X out of Y people found this review helpful option that some sites have. To me seeing that 90 out of 100 people agree with a particular review means I will take the time to really read that review and consider what it says when I make my buying decision. If I see 1 out of 10 people found a review helpful I will usually just skip it.
IMO that system works really well for the Good Old Games site. I find that the more helpful reviews are usually at the top of the list as they sort it based on the # of most helpful votes.
Reviews of a questionable nature are usually buried in the pile and I never even get to them before I make a decision.
This system requires some work on Paizo's part to setup, but after that it allows us, as the consumers, to moderate the reviews. It's also a great way for someone who's not very articulate to still have a say as they can just pick a well-written review that expresses how they feel and mark it as helpful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know that for products I purchase on Paizo, I'll see a message stating that I purchased it on such-and-such date. Therefore, it should be possible to list a "Paizo-verified purchase" on the reviews of those who bought a product thru the Paizo webstore or via subscription.
I'm not sure this kind of feature would be something we implement, because we acknowledge that everyone's situation is different, and where someone purchases (should they choose to purchase our products) should be done through whatever avenue works best for them (be it through a subscription, individual purchase on paizo.com, Amazon, their FLGS, or any other places where our product is sold). It might encourage people to only value reviews that have a visible "verified purchase" label.
Whether we'll implement a moderation system on reviews isn't something I can comment on, but I'm sure other staff will be able to offer more insight once everyone is back from Gen Con.
I get some (though by far not all) products before release date, but I make it a policy to read every page - multiple times, and usually playtest crunch if I'm not sure whether it works as intended.
Just in case anyone's interested - if you ever see a review of mine on release day, that's because I got the file at least 2 weeks prior to release.
And that effort is appreciated!
I know that for products I purchase on Paizo, I'll see a message stating that I purchased it on such-and-such date. Therefore, it should be possible to list a "Paizo-verified purchase" on the reviews of those who bought a product thru the Paizo webstore or via subscription.I'm not sure this kind of feature would be something we implement, because we acknowledge that everyone's situation is different, and where someone purchases (should they choose to purchase our products) should be done through whatever avenue works best for them (be it through a subscription, individual purchase on paizo.com, Amazon, their FLGS, or any other places where our product is sold). It might encourage people to only value reviews that have a visible "verified purchase" label.
Whether we'll implement a moderation system on reviews isn't something I can comment on, but I'm sure other staff will be able to offer more insight once everyone is back from Gen Con.
I would be against it, myself. For the same reasons mentioned. I understand why OneBookShelf sites use it, but that system doesn't really work for Paizo. I like being able to read reviews from anybody.
It should also be pointed out that advanced reading copies are standard for publishing in general. Publishers send books out to reviewers in hopes of getting favorable reviews when they hit the stands. Likewise, they also send books in manuscript to other authors in their stable so as to solicit blurbs. Many people have access to a book before the formal publication date.
I would be against it, myself. [snip] I like being able to read reviews from anybody.I know that for products I purchase on Paizo, I'll see a message stating that I purchased it on such-and-such date. Therefore, it should be possible to list a "Paizo-verified purchase" on the reviews of those who bought a product thru the Paizo webstore or via subscription.I'm not sure this kind of feature would be something we implement, because we acknowledge that everyone's situation is different, and where someone purchases (should they choose to purchase our products) should be done through whatever avenue works best for them (be it through a subscription, individual purchase on paizo.com, Amazon, their FLGS, or any other places where our product is sold).
Firstly, I can see why Paizo wouldn't want to show preferential treatment to certain customers and not others. Unlike with Amazon, Paizo does have a vested interest in keeping a healthy stable of local gaming stores. However, nothing in my suggestion would have entailed hiding the reviews of those who do not have a purchase verified by Paizo. Hence, I don't really understand the assumption, xorial, that non-Paizo reviews would be hidden.
FWIW, the reasons why I find the "verified" tag valuable on sites such as Amazon is largely to tell if negative reviews are by actual customers, or if it might be a competitor trying to drag down a rival's ratings. Not that a rival couldn't purchase a competitor's product for such purposes, but your average fan-boy isn't likely to be quite so thorough. Admittedly, that's probably a non-issue here, but since I rely heavily on Amazon's review system, I was simply calling out features that I find particularly helpful (such as voting reviews helpful or not). Naturally, YMMV.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Hence, I don't really understand the assumption, xorial, that non-Paizo reviews would be hidden.
They wouldn't be hidden, but they wouldn't have the bling that, inevitably, would cause some people to ignore them.
If we do anything to highlight individual reviews, it will likely be allowing the community to indicate useful reviews.
But we have way higher priorities for the web team than that....
But we have way higher priorities for the web team than that....
Good - I want my Paizo Game Space already!
