Editor's Note: This editorial goes hand in hand with my recent interview on the topic of GameFAQs' removal of PSP reader reviews.
I've recently stated that I'm not a big fan of reader reviews. Problems of self-selection, timing, and the questionable qualifications of the average reader-reviewer make them next to useless. One would think that having a trained editor reviewing these reviews for appropriateness and relevance would help solve these problems. I don't think it does, though.
The one strength of reader reviews, despite the above problems, is that they give one of the closest approximations of a truly unfiltered public opinion on a game possible. The aggregate views of a sizable group of average consumers, whatever their problems, provides a somewhat interesting look at a subsection of the wide array of opinions on a piece of hardware or software. By picking and choosing from these views, even for seemingly valid reasons, this interesting cross-section becomes further tainted by a largely invisible editor's hand. Taking out reviews you don't think are worthy inevitably skews an already tainted sample even more.
All of the most common reasons for editing or removing a reader review don't hold up to much scrutiny. Editing a review for foul language? If a product make a reader feel like cursing, shouldn't those strong feelings be expressed? Editing a review for baseless opinions that aren't backed up in the text? Such a problem should be apparent to any decently aware reader. Remove a review for factual errors? If you know the product this well, couldn't you just write a more worthwhile review yourself?
Reader reviews, if they are implemented at all, should be implemented as an unregulated forum, allowing all viewpoints, no matter how foul, baseless, or just plain wrong, a chance to get equal consideration by anyone willing to seek them out. If this is made clear to the reader, you should trust them to take these unregulated reviews for what they are... the uneditted, unfiltered, and generally worthless opinions of the general public.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd like to start with saying thanks for the mention on your blog. But even though I appreciate it, I have to say that I disagree with your critique. Review submissions do have value to some people, and the community involved in it on GameFAQs takes it pretty seriously. Yes, it should be open to any opinion, but I still feel that there should be some minimum standards (Especially considering that bad language/sexual preference insults are banned on the message boards at GameFAQs anyway).
ReplyDeleteHere's a couple pennies...
ReplyDeleteAnother strength of reader reviews is that the reader is more likely to have played the game at a pace that allows for full appreciation of the product.
I thoroughly enjoyed the opporunity to fully explore Aether and use all of Samus' abilities to collect the nine keys at the end of Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. However, if a deadline were breathing down my neck and I had several other games to finish, I might have started whining about all the backtracking.
Two points:
ReplyDeleteRemove a review for factual errors? If you know the product this well, couldn't you just write a more worthwhile review yourself?
That misses the point of a reader looking for informational reviews, one who doesn't know the product, taking a blatant lie at face value. I think that there would be editorial value in removing a review that appears to be maliciously erroneous. Slippery, I agree.
I would prefer an unfiltered view of what people say, as you advocate, Kyle. But I'd also suggest that moderation of reviews by other readers (a la Slashdot) would be useful too. Maybe an idea similar to "did you find this helpful" from Amazon's pages? (Provided they haven't patented that already.) A system that can self regulate has, I think, a good chance of being more useful.
jvm
Two points:
ReplyDeleteRemove a review for factual errors? If you know the product this well, couldn't you just write a more worthwhile review yourself?
That misses the point of a reader looking for informational reviews, one who doesn't know the product, taking a blatant lie at face value. I think that there would be editorial value in removing a review that appears to be maliciously erroneous. Slippery, I agree.
I would prefer an unfiltered view of what people say, as you advocate, Kyle. But I'd also suggest that moderation of reviews by other readers (a la Slashdot) would be useful too. Maybe an idea similar to "did you find this helpful" from Amazon's pages? (Provided they haven't patented that already.) A system that can self regulate has, I think, a good chance of being more useful.
jvm
I agre wholeheartedly. There's no reason to delete a reader review. Unless that review breaks the common online posting negatives, it's a viewpoint. Let people complain...if their need for a positive review is so huge, then they can write their own. They DO have the ability.
ReplyDelete