E-Mail:
Get our new Windows 7 eBook (PDF) for $7 with 70+ Tips. Download Now!

Equipment Reviews Online – Can They Be Trusted?

While reading through some of the places I check for news each day, I came upon an article that asks the rather naive question, “Do retailers do any editing of the reviews shown online?”

Well, at first I laughed, then I thought for a moment. I suppose that there are many people who tend to believe that reviews are an honest appraisal of what the customer experiences.  I tend to believe that also. But, what I know from my own experience, is that there is a more insidious way to affect the reviews.

The retailer simply deletes or disallows the ones that are very bad, and are correct in their assertions. The second part of that is very important, which is why you will see some bad reviews in place.

There are two ways the bad review can happen to get there. In one case, the product truly is great, and so, by allowing a bad review into the mix, the site shows that no one is perfect, and the site credibility stays, while the overall impression of the product in question remains good. The other way that a bad review can be allowed is when the reviewer is clearly not in full possession of his senses, so that the review  is immediately spotted as something to be ignored.

Now I also realize that the reader is probably asking, “What does the author know about it?”

My experience with this sort of thing is long and complex, but a recent experience with the return of memory at Newegg made me know that reviews are ’sifted’. This is especially true where the reviewer has something less than sparkling to say about Newegg as supplier.  In short, I had counted upon the powers that be at Newegg to follow their stated policy – which for the memory I bought was replacement. Exactly what I wanted.  Instead, I was refunded, and so lost money on the deal, due to shipping charges lost and changes in memory pricing. The refund was a gain for them, and also expressly not done according to the policy statement in 3 places on the website.

When I put up an unfavorable review of the tactics used on me, it was taken down, never to be seen again.

So the slashdot article has some meaning for me, and I too wonder what, other than speaking out, can be done about this sort of bad behavior.

“I recently purchased a NAS from a well-known online computer component shop. I have purchased several items from the website and have never had much trouble before. That was until I realized what I had bought was a terrible NAS. All the reviews on the site from users seemed very good. After a little research, it became clear that the product in question was indeed terrible. After finding the product pretty much useless for its intended purpose, I proceeded to write a review for it on the website to inform other would-be buyers. After about a week, I noticed that the review never made it up there, so I wrote another one just in case. After several attempts to leave a negative review for the product, I realized that the website was screening reviews and only posting the ones that made the products look good. All the reviews on the website are positive; I’ve only found one at less than 3 out of 5 stars. Is this legal? Ethically speaking, it’s wrong, and it’s intentionally misleading to the customer. Is there a good place to report behavior like this? How common is this among online retailers who provide user reviews?”

I suppose that a call to the Better Business Bureau could be a start, but in my efforts with other companies, I have found the results to be less than satisfactory. The pen, or in this case, keyboard, really is mightier than the sword, so a written article, a letter to the editor, or a question, such as the one above, is the way to get some results.

§

Opera, the fastest and most secure web browser

nuclear-fallout-bozo

Sometimes, a letter of complaint, that gets seen by many, is like a nuclear blast to a less than honest retailer’s reputation.




What Do You Think?

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Posted Recently

51 queries / 0.794 seconds.