RPGNow paid reviewers

[Vigilance]

I think it's a great idea.

Personally, a few consistent reviewers who do a good job are worth more to me than "customer reviews." In particular, once I learn to recognize a reviewer and learn how their tastes/ratings relate to my own, their reviews become much more valueable. I usually don't quite trust an random customer's review (unless it is very well-written and gives concrete reasons to back up opinions) because I don't know the bias of the writer.

Agreed.

And again, this change isnt from some pointy haired boss who decided out of the blue to do it.

More reviews- and better reviews- has been a consistent request of the site's customers in the last several polls.

Chuck

 

[Psion]

One wonders why they link RPGnet reviews at the bottom of RPGnow products, but not ENworld reviews.

 

[Vigilance]

One wonders why they link RPGnet reviews at the bottom of RPGnow products, but not ENworld reviews.

I have no idea. Im not affiliated with ENWorld- I just work for RPGObjects and own a (very very) small company- which gets me the vendor emails.

And I have gathered from those vendor mailings that the current staff reviews, along with some other proposed changes to the site's structure, were driven by customer comments.

Also to Starglim- if compensating reviewers with product is wrong, then over 50% of all reviews are "disinterested".

Chuck

 

[Starglim]

Also to Starglim- if compensating reviewers with product is wrong, then over 50% of all reviews are "disinterested".

Chuck

Why to me? I've never expressed anything close to that opinion.

 

[Vigilance]

That may well be the case, nor would I accuse anyone of dishonesty or shilling in their reviews. I draw a distinction, though, between disinterested reviews and actual customer ratings.

This isnt you?

This reads as Compensated reviewer=disinterested reviewer to me.

Which I can see as a point of view- just pointing out that many many reviewers are compensated in one fashion or another.

 

[Starglim]

This isnt you?

This reads as Compensated reviewer=disinterested reviewer to me.

Which I can see as a point of view- just pointing out that many many reviewers are compensated in one fashion or another.

No, my point was that Reviewer /= Buyer in this model. Whether the reviewer received money, product, or nothing at all is a separate and not very important question. Nor do I think that it's wrong to review a product. It's a complete straw man.

 

[Crothian]

No, my point was that Reviewer /= Buyer in this model. Whether the reviewer received money, product, or nothing at all is a separate and not very important question. Nor do I think that it's wrong to review a product. It's a complete straw man.

THen why is a buyer review better then a reviewer review?

 

[Starglim]

THen why is a buyer review better then a reviewer review?

It isn't better. But it would be a mistake to present the latter as the former.

 

[Crothian]

It isn't better. But it would be a mistake to present the latter as the former.

But in reading a review, if the person doesn't specifically say they bought it or they got it for free; how can you tell which is which?

 

[Starglim]

THen why is a buyer review better then a reviewer review?

To expand on this, there are at least two significant differences between a buyer and a (non-customer) reviewer.

• The buyer has chosen to seek out the product because she has a direct use for it in her game. This means she has a specific and positive expectation of what it ought to deliver, rather than what the author might have felt like writing.
• The buyer has every right to make a harsh response if she finds the product's value is inadequate, for whatever reason, where a reviewer has a somewhat more friendly relationship with the vendor. Again I absolutely don't refer to a financial relationship.

A buyer review is not better - in many cases they are biased and unfair - but it's a perspective that I find more useful.