Hacker News Reader

Comment by vmception | Hacker News Reader

My favorite is seeing 5 star reviews that are hijacking the top to complain.

I've also seen 1 star reviews that are exalting reviews.

But my all time ongoing pet peeve is how recommendation engines especially on video streaming and video game series use numbers and star systems that are not based on any other human's input. Not a critic, not a user score, just an algorithm's confidence score on similarities.

View on HN

The 1 star review that loves the product but hated the way it was shipped. Someone needs to write a textbook on the pathology of those people.

The customer paid not only for the product but also for the service of having that product delivered to them. Asking them to restrict their review to only one aspect of what they paid for does not seem reasonable.

Depends. Oftentimes the shipping problem is the carrier's fault (e.g. UPS or FedEx) and not in control of the shipper at all. Other times they packaged it poorly and it predictably broke, leaked, or melted and it's entirely the carrier's fault. But I do see a plethora of comments that seem to be blaming things like shipping delays on the seller.

And in that case, the company's response is pretty important. There's a world of difference between (a) "it was fine on our end, take it up with the shipper", (b) "we are sorry this happened and are shipping a replacement", and (c) "thank you, and we are looking into other shipping options as a result of the frequent complaints". Some combination of (b) and (c) is acceptable. (a) is not acceptable.

It's about giving proper weight to each aspect. Giving a 1 star review to an otherwise 4 star experience is dishonest if you only have some issue with the shipping (or marketing tactics), just as an example.

Right. Issues about shipping are not what product rating are for.

Of course it is a problem that Amazon does not provide a way to separately report packaging and transport problems.

"Proper weight" is subjective. Disagreeing with dfxm12 doesn't constitute dishonesty.

It does if they are on a product page reviewing a product and not, say, reviewing Amazon’s service.

I think the comment is more directed at folks who, and I noticed this weird behavior the other day myself, post tirades about the cardboard box being slightly damaged (while the goods and packaging inside are completely fine). These in particular are more akin to saying:

"hey this protective outer barrier did it's job, had a scratch on the shipping label, and successfully protected the contents. The contents were IN PERFECT CONDITION, 1 star review!!! CONSUMER RIGHTS!11!11!!1 REFUND NOW DAMAGED BOX"

The real weird part though; is how the outer packaging regardless of the quality of what is inside the box (their actual goods purchased) dominates their reviews. It's like a whole subculture, or something, I can't even begin to understand. The internet never ceases to to amaze me for the sheer breadth of absurdity one can find.

The behaviour you describe would be considered normal in Japan. There it's not a sub-culture. Pretty much any Japanese buyer would consider the packaging as part-and-parcel. And they'd complain in case of defective packaging, regardless of its functional impact.

As someone who lives in Japan that’s a behavior that a loud minority of unreasonable people exhibit, but most Japanese people I know don’t mind damage from transit like most well-adjusted humans anywhere - the delivery person might point it out when you sign for the package but it’s not a big deal. It’s more important for gifts and stuff though where the presentation is part of the gesture.

I was more thinking about B2B shipments, than consumer. The general presumption upon receipt of product at the loading dock in Japan is that slightly damaged packaging is a quality issue. It is applied to domestic and global suppliers alike. But the latter may sometimes fail to understand and vainly push back.

These are well-adjusted humans too. Just operating under a different set of criteria w.r.t. quality.

So, is it weird to say they expected the literal outer packaging to be pristine as well? I’m just saying, there must a textbook worth of analysis we can do on these people.

The list of these people is totally publicly available too, it would be great to just examine their world view to understand just who is actually wandering around out there.

There’s no way their pathology doesn’t bleed into how they impact life.

Issue here is that any given product on Amazon may be sold by numerous different sellers (and the set of sellers could of course change over time etc.). There is no indication which seller a reviewer purchased from (unless they explicitly state, but I've never seen that), so it's completely possible that they ordered from the one seller that packages the product terribly for shipping & the rest are all fine.

I have seen a 1 star review of a glass container, which broke when the buyer dropped it. I mean, come on!

Are you referring to the product named "Unbreakable Glass Container, AS SEEN ON TV"?

No no no, we need to better understand the people who respond in the Q & A section with variants of "I don't know"

I think those are a side effect of Amazon sending out emails like 'what did you think of x product? Reply with your review!' after a purchase. Why they don't filter them out, I don't know.

Edit, I mean the ones that ask you questions about a product you purchased

My theory: I think Amazon is showing the unanswered questions to random people, and they answer "I don't know" to make them go away.

Amazon sends sends the questions out and presents them as if you specifically were being asked by somebody.

It's like if Amazon built a guide map by walking up to people on the street and asking, "how do you get to the airport from here?" and writing down the response verbatim. A reasonable person would tend to respond, "I don't know" rather than ignoring a direct question asked of them.

I’ve done this, and stand by it. Since Amazon allows you to rate the delivery by third party suppliers, but not by itself.

On the whole Amazon is good, but occasionally in the past it was poor, however there was no Avenue to raise that.

Shipping is part of the purchase process.

If the product is good, but the shipping is not, buyers deserve to be informed.

If there are separate reviews for the product and the shipping of a product (still tied to that product, but also the shipping carrier that was used for that order) then a split review (one for each) is legitimate. Otherwise if there's only one review spot, EVERYTHING is on the table.

And in shipping we could distinguish packaging and transport. I would like to rate both.

One of the problems here is when Amazon has one shared item listing for multiple sellers.

A bad review for the product due to one seller's shipping hurts all the other sellers too.

Portal, the game by Valve, has some rabid fanboys. I only played it this year because my computer was unable to handle it. I was disappointed with how easy and short the game was. Style over substance for someone who enjoys Baba Is You or Riven.

Anyway, the first several negative reviews read like this: "Are you seriously looking for a negative review? Come on! The game is amazing! Buy it!"

I hate the people who don't cast their vote to represent just their opinion, but rather try to get the score where they think it belongs.

" Absolutely amazing dont listen to the "gamers" that havent even played it yet and just love to get on a hate train. " (10)

" A fantastic game troubled by some technical issues. It's obvious that right now it doesn't deserve that 10/10 (with some patches tho? possible), but I'm still scoring it like that to counter all the review bombing GTA kiddies (more depth, rotfl) and trolls that haven't even seen the game. " (10)

The above from the most overhyped game of the year.

> Portal, the game by Valve

Published in 2007.

> I only played it this year

Portal is to a great extent a tech demo for its unprecedented "portal" rendering. This enabled some very 3D puzzles of a style that gamers hadn't seen before. Of course it's going to look a little pale in 2020, although you'd hope any original bugs were fixed.

Sharpshooter fallacy: shooting a rifle at a barn and painting a bullseye around the biggest cluster of hits.

"Portal is to a great extent a tech demo" (therefore it shouldn't be judged as a game)

Yet Portal is sold as a game in its own right. Riven was released in 1997 and is still a delightful intellectual challenge today, with nothing really like it. It's very much the opposite of modern games with a built-in GPS system telling you where to go. Riven is clunky, pixellated, but integrates good puzzles and a well thought out world in a way I haven't seen anywhere else. It was also a technical feat at the time.

Like I said in my Steam review, I believe Portal popularity comes from the fact it's a puzzle game attractive enough to draw people who don't play puzzle games.

Baba Is You is going to be a classic 20 years from now, despite its ugly graphics. In hands of anyone else, it would be just a gimmick, like Portal. But the idea was masterfully executed.

Portal was made as full game, tech demo was earlier Narbacular Drop.

(personally I think Portal is a great game, but obviously it won't satisfy hardcore puzzle-solvers. however I don't think every game have to be about tricky puzzles)

Luckily we have rotten tomatoes as a decent indicator of actual critic reviews. Until they start gaming the reviews to boost movies they (subsidiary of Comcast) want to promote.

You think they aren’t already?

Personally I couldn't care less about the critic reviews/score, but the audience score is usually spot on for the stuff I'm interested in.

Sadly it only used to be that way for me. In genres I liked, the consensus could be all the way down to 30% and I knew I would enjoy it, as in 30% and above would be a good movie for me. But then things with 70% positive audience reviews in the same genre started being imo the dumbest poorly written, composed, experiences...

I guess this is a sign of getting old and out of touch? or the presence of shills? I dont know but I know not to trust them

I like to use the audience score as well. I found it has some pitfalls occasionally, although they can be fun.

Certain movies attract a very narrow and enthusiastic, that will upvote the movie disproportionately (people not interested in the kind of movie will not even vote). A my little pony movie can get as good scores as the Godfather. Maybe it is, who knows.

Yeah, this is why critic reviews are still needed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com