The all new dooyoo help thread reloaded!

Camp_Freddy

brooke3 wrote: »

Just thought you all might like to know that the guide from my previous post has PMed me to apologise, she was just having a bad day and took it out on me.

Somehow, I can't help but feel there's a tiny little fib in there, but that's just me. It's nice there was an apology, but...

Camp_Freddy

jo_b wrote: »

Sorry for going slightly off on a tangent here but it just set me thinking that longer reviews aren't necessarily any better than shorter but concisely written reviews.

Ah! But short reviews aren't necessarily concise! That's the beauty of it. You can have short, waffly reviews and long, concise reviews.

I find concise reviews, irrespective of word count, to be better.

barongreenback

Yeah what Freddy says is true. I very rarely right over 800 words and average nearer 5 or 600 yet I still have the tendency to waffle! Sometimes people pack loads of opinion into short reviews sometimes people pack loads into long. I personally think it is harder to write a long review that is full of opinion and doesn't wander into pointless territory but I have seen some great reviews that manage well over 1000 and still keep to the point. All personal preference and there is really no right or wrong. Unfortunately, people do rate on length (in all walks of life:rotfl:) but IMO they are wrong for doing so.

brooke3

I think it's impossible to generalise about all reviews because it really does depend on what you're reviewing.

what annoys me is when people say there's not much to say about this product. It makes me wonder why they bother to write a review about something that they don't have much to say about.

And I also sometimes think it's unfair that you get paid the same for reviews of chocolate bars (that can easily be written in 200 words with little or no research) as they do for say travel reviews that need some research and can't be written in so few words.

barongreenback

brooke3 wrote: »

I think it's impossible to generalise about all reviews because it really does depend on what you're reviewing.

what annoys me is when people say there's not much to say about this product. It makes me wonder why they bother to write a review about something that they don't have much to say about.

And I also sometimes think it's unfair that you get paid the same for reviews of chocolate bars (that can easily be written in 200 words with little or no research) as they do for say travel reviews that need some research and can't be written in so few words.

I think if you want a sliding scale of payments though, Ciao is perhaps your better option of review sites. I like the fact everything gets paid the same. There is a consistency there and transparency that other sites don't have. It is a little galling that someone can barely scrape the limit and get paid for it but if they meet the criteria then their reviews are as valid as a 1000 word review. We are paid after all for our opinion not by the word, which is how it should be. Just be safe in the knowledge a 200 hundred word review on chocolate is highly unlike to get a crown whereas if you write a 1000 word review with plenty of opinion I think you have a slightly better chance!

Of course, length once again means nothing. I have seen truly excellent 400 word reviews crowned.

brooke3

I don't want a sliding scale of payments, it's just that sometimes it doesn't seem fair. Sometimes I read reviews by people who write almost exclusively about food or makeup and although they're useful I know if I was writing it it would take me ten minutes, whereas my reviews take anywhere between an hour and four hours to write. Which is my choice, I feel better knowing that I'm putting something out there that I'm proud of and it's always nice when you get rewarded with a crown. Plus I'm making up for my shockingly awful first reviews.

barongreenback

brooke3 wrote: »

I don't want a sliding scale of payments, it's just that sometimes it doesn't seem fair. Sometimes I read reviews by people who write almost exclusively about food or makeup and although they're useful I know if I was writing it it would take me ten minutes, whereas my reviews take anywhere between an hour and four hours to write. Which is my choice, I feel better knowing that I'm putting something out there that I'm proud of and it's always nice when you get rewarded with a crown. Plus I'm making up for my shockingly awful first reviews.

Find me a member whose first reviews are not awful and they have come from another review site!

Camp_Freddy

barongreenback wrote: »

I think if you want a sliding scale of payments though, Ciao is perhaps your better option of review sites. I like the fact everything gets paid the same. There is a consistency there and transparency that other sites don't have. It is a little galling that someone can barely scrape the limit and get paid for it but if they meet the criteria then their reviews are as valid as a 1000 word review. We are paid after all for our opinion not by the word, which is how it should be. Just be safe in the knowledge a 200 hundred word review on chocolate is highly unlike to get a crown whereas if you write a 1000 word review with plenty of opinion I think you have a slightly better chance!

Of course, length once again means nothing. I have seen truly excellent 400 word reviews crowned.

I'd like to see a tiered scale of payment, but only in that rates should be paid the 15 miles, not reads and NU rates get nowt. That way, you're only paying for something if a member finds it useful in some shape or form. If I rate a review NU, then it is either abusive or has no useful content. That doesn't deserve payment IMO.

The only problem with that is that the reivewer still gets their 50p posting reward, but I guess that could be recinded by Dooyoo at cashout time.

brooke3

But I have usually around 2-10 members reading my review who don't bother to rate...often after I've rated their review as somewhat useful or not useful. I don't think I should miss out on the money because of this.
I think we would see more revenge rating if people didn't get paid for not useful's. If a review is truly not useful dooyoo won't pay the person for it anyway so really not useful reviews don't get anything.

barongreenback

brooke3 wrote: »

But I have usually around 2-10 members reading my review who don't bother to rate...often after I've rated their review as somewhat useful or not useful. I don't think I should miss out on the money because of this.
I think we would see more revenge rating if people didn't get paid for not useful's. If a review is truly not useful dooyoo won't pay the person for it anyway so really not useful reviews don't get anything.

I would agree with this as dooyoo are pretty hot on not paying out.