Rya Nitely Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Robert Galland wrote: I hope they are considering doing away with the requirement that you have to give a written review as well as making the option easier to find. This would also make it easier to game. There should at least be a name to make the person (even if it is an alt) accountable. But being anonymous just makes it too easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rya Nitely Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Ishtara wrote: I don't even know how to rate on SLM. Working out how to rate an item is easy. Making an avatar as good as as yours...? I think if you can do that you'll be ok. I'm still scratching my head about what to do with mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rya Nitely Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 *Wonders if they could give us a font between 10 and 12* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrius Gothly Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Rya Nitely wrote: Edit to say: Oh, and I have to use the larger font because I hate the small print. It hurts my eyes. I wish they would default to 12pt instead of 10 pt. Under the My Settings options, I believe there is an option to set the desired font size. The default is Medium. You might want to change it to Large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabalyero Kidd Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 WOW! I'd be more than willing to review their items specially if the PRICE is RIGHT. LOL!:manvery-happy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fornicola Butuzova Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 Customers are like any other group of people, some are stupid, most are not, There is a way to game the stupid ones, and that is Beef #3 for next Monday, lol, but to do it you have to break 2 different federal laws! and there are a LOT of people doing it! Back on topic! The thing is not so much that people don't know what makes an item more expensive, it is in some,cases, but there are some people who just do not want to pay that much. And that is fine. The rWarder game is not based on repeat business, it is based on one sale to nearly everybody. The products are typically not at the cutting edge, and are not expensive, so exposure and apathy are the names of the game, It is like tabloid magazines, they are not great writing, but if you are sitting at the check out of grocery store, you are gonna sell a few, who cares, its only a buck!. And I am fine with that as well, one time sales of junk to mass quantities of customers who don't care about it is a perfectly legitimate business model. But you shouldn't be allowed to game the ratings system to operate your scheme. You shouldn't be able to get the exposure this dodgy strategy requires to take advantage of customer apathy by exploiting a policy designed to actually stop gaming. What most people don't realize, because on the surface it seems completely counter intuitive, is that any attempt to "level the playing field" means you are granting consideration and concessions to certain activities or behaviors. Once you define them, people will always game it, work it against the original motive and it produces the exact opposite effect, usually hurting those you were looking to try and help. Look around, Anywhere there has been a policy legislated to "level the playing field", or in some way regulate activities in any industry, it has been gamed by one side, against the competition or the consumers, usually both.. If you try to help merchants by granting weight to ratings, you get people buying ratings. Try to help merchants by granting weight to pic's, you have people buying pics. Whatever you do to "smooth things out" just empowers those who will game it against those you intended to help. That is why I'm a HUGE proponent of revenue. To game it you need lots of avatars. You need lots of cash. You need lots of time. It is too much work for even the dishonest to want to do. The amount of work compared to the influence you would generate is just not worth it, and you can't ever stop, if you let up, take a break, you slide right back down. This is why they game houses more than anything, the prices are higher and return is better for the VERY little work it takes, crooks are lazy. It is heaven for the crooked. But lets say you did want to game a revenue based system. You have a crappy house that you know you cant sell for much and you are going to try to game your way into some sales. To beat out a legitimate" home run" product, or even a new and untested "killer" product you would need to have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of L$ on hand, divided up between hundreds of alt avatars. You would need to buy the product, one at a time, logging on each alt to make the sales. The crappier the product you want to game, the lower the price you can ask for it, the more work you have to do The work involved is inversely proportionate to the return. And even if you priced yourself unreasonably high, to limit the amount of work, you have to do, you have to remember that with the higher price comes higher consumer doubt. You now face consumers who will not just buy "Anything:" on impulse for a few cents because there is little or no risk, but consumers who are now going to be careful. They won't think about spending 99l, but they will think about 499L, and think even more as the price goes up. It cancels itself out because at some point, at some price, reason enters the equation. And the final point is commission. Win or lose, you have to pay commission. At 3% a crack, you would go broke before you bought any significant influence. Cant charge more either now because 3% of 999L is WAY more than 3% of 99L. Youi cant do it! You would have to spend a ton of money to pay commissions without any guarantee of even one sale! Unlike the current games they run Revenue requires expense, risk and effort! Customers will not just buy junk for higher prices because they are "Stupid", they only buy junk because it is too cheap to matter to them, good or bad! If you can get in front of more of these people than anyone else, you wiin! But we either need to eliminate weighting by ratings, or eliminate rWarder, because this game should not be won on the backs of those who are trying to win fairly! How can you expect us to keep paying for "Listing Enhancements" when the very best enhancement EVER is only 400L a month, it enhances ALL a merchants items and is actually proven more successful that anything at getting your products increased exposure and sales. LL should kill this for no other reason than it is a better product than they offer, at a cheaper price, maybe that fact out there on the table for consideration will get some traction lol. One last thought, paying people to rate your product is not "Clear, Honest or Accurate" as mandated by ToS! 475 ratings by those who love or hate a product is not equivalint to 475 people who SOLD those ratings for money! Contrary to what the ad says IT IS NOT MORAL! It is a Tos Violation Kill it, or nuke rank by ratings! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederik Enoch Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I'm the creator and ideator of rWarder system. Since i reward both negative and positive reviews i'm not violating the TOS and there's nothing immoral in it or it doesn't give undeserved advantages. Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryLow Kappler Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Old thread, but must be said! It DOES give undue advantages! The only motivation for a customer to write such a review is a reward.. Otherwise they would NEVER do it. So what do you think how many of rewarded reviews are honest or helpful for future consumers or the merchant himself? I think merchants (should usually) know that rewarded reviews are generally worthless. So why would a merchant still like to get hundreds of biased and mainly useless reviews if not for misleading future consumers?!? The answer was already given! Even if its not against the ToS, but since all those reviews are biased its actually blatant cheating on future consumers and ethical not acceptable. Its just the mendacious bogus morality of a few merchants using this system! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now