Ratings -- a personal view
May 02 '00
I thought I'd post here my criteria for rating reviews:
I have different criteria for "Member Advice" Epinions and product and service reviews. I'll denote with (MA) and (PS) the different criteria below.
Highly Recommended
Must be all of the following:
HR1. Informative
HR2. (PS) Complete -- (this only applies to what the reviewer should know, of course)
HR3. (MA) Substantially accurate in fact (e.g., in "Overlooked Deductions", a comment that you must earn a profit in 3 of 5 years in order for the IRS to consider you a business, while the correct answer is that IF you earn a profit 3 of 5 years, the IRS has the burden of proof to show that you are not running a business.)
HR3. (PS) Substantially accurate in features (e.g., stating that a consumer device has a certain feature, when, in fact, it does not. (The question of whether the feature works correctly may be an opinion, not covered by this rule).)
HR4. Useful to the reader
HR5. On-Topic
HR6. Well-written
In either a product or an opinion review, it is not a requirement that I agree with it. If I strongly disagree with an Epinion, but feel it falls into the HR or R category, I'll back out without rating it.
Also note that, if I AM an expert, then I may not be able to rate "ease of use" properly, in regard HR3 or HR4.
Recommended
Generally meets criteria HR1, R3 (below), HR4, and HR5, but fails in some way to meet my standard for HR.
R3. (MA) Substantially accurate in significant facts (e.g., in "Overlooked Deductions", a comment that it is not necessary to file or pay income tax would generally change my rating to NR.
R3. (PS) Substantially accurate in significant features (e.g., stating that a stereo system has a remote, when, in fact, it does not, would lower my rating to SR.)
Not Recommended
I only use this for the following reasons:
1. The review is (almost) completely off topic.
2. The review has significant errors in fact, e.g., an Epinion in "Overlooked Deductions" recommending not filing income tax returns.
3. Reviews that seem to be desperately trying to reach the 100 word mark.
4. Reviews that consist of an ad for a product or service not being reviewed, e.g., an Epinion in "Overlooked Deductions" recommending www.taxadvantage.com.
5. If the poster invites me to, and I agree, and would otherwise rate it SR. This applies mostly to "How I Rate" reviews, where I sometimes apply their own standards to the review.
6. The review falls under Epinion's "abuse" standards for repetition or plagiarism. Note to plagiarism scanners: Please Email me if you find a review that I've rated highly to be plagiarized.
7. The review is mostly off-topic, and the on-topic part would only rate SR.
Somewhat Recommended
Most reviews which fall below my criteria for HR or R, but do not meet any of my criteria for NR.
Closing notes
If you find a rating of mine which doesn't meet my criteria, tell me about it. My Email address is in my profile. I may have made a mistake.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
Arthur.Rubin
|
 in Personal Finance |
 in Personal Finance |
 - Top 500 |
|
Member: Arthur Rubin
Location: Brea, CA, USA
Reviews written: 97
Trusted by: 109 members
About Me:
Expert in mathematics, computers, income tax, with a wide variety of interests.
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.