Review Spam

I think its just the way points are displayed.  It says you get 3 per review even though you get five, so when a review gets spammed, it thinks only 3 points get removed when really its 5.

729/3 = 243*5 = 1215

so much closer to the 1400.

Yea... that's totally what I meant. haha

Reading properly FTW

Go to the section (snowboarding----------->camping) and click on one of them.

Then a bunch of other menus appear, one of which is the brand menu.

Scroll over it (dont click on it). Then click on your brand of choice.

Scroll to the very bottom of it. 

Voila - brand reviews for that brand.

Flag review.

If you spot another one, wait for page to reload, scroll way the hell back down.

Flag review.

Go to next brand on the list. 

Then when you complete each section, go to the next one - bleh! 

Its a MAAAAAAASSSSSIIIIIIIIIVVVVVVVVEEEEEEE  pain in the nuts. Still, i expected it to be worse than it was. Thankfully there is much less exploitation of it than i thought there would be. 

That being said, i wont be piling through it again for a while. Its someone elses turn :p 

then you have all of the brands from which to click from.... but its easier to right-click and open each brand in a new tab to search for what/who you're looking for.

either way its WAYYYYYYYY PITA!!!!!

ie. helpful or spam..... 

for every 5 'minuses' it was supposed to automatically spam/flag the review.... but personally ive never seen it work quite like that.....

http://www.trusnow.com/profile_reviews.asp?PF=298890&view=brandreviews (340 pts from brand reviews alone)

If it wasn't for his lame revive, I wouldn't have caught him so thanks to AJD13 for that!

http://www.trusnow.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=42040

Ugh, he has a lot of short product reviews too:

quite bs

those are a lot of points from peeps leaving "empty reviews?" dunno how that's possible.

Id ask them to look at your malavita, dakine travel bag, and ruler boot reviews. Basically theres no doubt youve used them for their purpose based on what you wrote. The malavita is a decent review, the others okay, but way beyond the minimum. 

Borderline reviews might be the splice one and the stomp pad. Stomp pad reviews are generally bullshit to be honest. But i guess people need to know if it sticks. The problem with your review is that last line stating youll see how it goes this season - implying of course youve only really stuck it on your board and havent yet used it with snow. 

The splice one was okay, but needs just a little more comparison to other goggles when you make a claim like the field of vision is just okay. My splices seem pretty damn good to be honest. I also ride with EG2s which are great, and though the splices feel a bit smaller, the field of vision is still way beyond other goggle ive used prior to them (phenoms, targa 2s). So the Okay needs qualification - okay compared to what? 

So again, comparisons always help make the case a bit stronger and add detail to your review.

Beware of reviewing stuff though that you havent used in the place youre supposed to be using them. It might just be how you wrote (i dont think it is though), but the impression i got from a couple of your boot reviews was that you tried them on at a shop and reviewed them based on that. This is definitely the stuff of flagging. Also beware of using the same phrases ("4 stars, minus one point for..." and "they could pack out..." And beware of qualifiers like "could" in the phrase "could pack out", since they immediately tell the person reading that you dont actually know, which means you havent actually tested them anywhere near enough to comment on them. 

Hope that helps for future if you do get some reviews reinstated (the malavita should certainly be reinstated). Good luck on it! :) 

...

Its curious you find splices have only an okay field of vision compared to crowbars. Each to their own. Of the two i picked up the splices precisely because they seemed like they had a bigger field of vision. i wont stress the point though because i havent ridden the crowbars, and ten minutes in a shop based on a flimsy memory tells you very little... :) 

The minus 1 star problem is the repetition of the phrase to any moderator looking through your list of reviews. They see the same phrasing and it impels you to look through to see just how much repetitive phrasing you can find. If you start seeing overly repeitive phrasing you might consider that the person reviewing it is phoning it in a bit, or worse, simply mixing their phrasing to garner points. Its not a flag in itself, but its circumstantial evidence building up to a flag/lock out. 

Heres a nuaghty secret... but genuinely we do really want to flag as many reviews as we possibly can. 

I know that sounds obverse to what you think, but reviews should only be carried out by people who can offer genuinely informed information on the product. Its not really a free for all like the forums. Youre basically doing a job for TruSnow and being paid with 5 points instead of one foryour time and trouble. So if you do a shitty job of it, we have zero hesitation to flag them. As i say then, its best when writing reviews to consider that. We're really looking for patterns of behaviour a lot of the time (continually throwing out 3 reviews then leaving every day, or repetition of stock phrases are good patterns... other patterns thti would take into consideration is padding nonsense, and type of items you choose to review - stomp pads are a great way to catch out points spammers im afraid for the very reason you listed... what can you really say about it? You can find super short reviews of them, and you can find reallllllly over the top long winded reviews of them. But you find people running to them for points precisely because they think they dont have to think about what they need to say on them. Its like shooting fish in a barrel for us just by the very action of trying to review one. Which of course sounds cyncial. There are good ways to review a stomp pad. It just needs to be informative, lack fluff, basically talk about its grip, display, its board stickiness, and ease of removal. You dont need to say too much, but you do need to say enough. Goldilocks. The fact that someone is reviewing them though is suspect and builds on the circumstantial profile thats being built in case of a duff review... :) 

I know i sound like a bureaucrat in these situations but i genuinely like the reviews section. I was very protective of it against the vagaries of the points system since i consider it a genuinely useful and helpful part of the site. If people use it for free points, it loses its legitimacy. Arguably it has long since gone way the hell beyond that line, but its nice if we can keep trying to encourage good reviews. So though i no longer trust a word that anyone writes in there, i live in hope that people may see its mutually beneficial to post good reviews over empty reviews for points. :) 

So yep, the considerations that go into flagging are complicated and arent just based on only whats written. To be sure, reviews are DEFINITELY flagged based on their own merit, but if its borderline, circumstantial evidence starts playing a bigger part in the decisions. Understand though, flags shouldnt really happen if the review is decent regardless (unless its copied from another site - as actually used to happen, or you've recopied the exact same post on a different year model for the same item). Circumstantial information only factors in if the review is kinda lame anyway. :) Hope this helps explain more than youd ever want to know about it :p