- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,786
Like the rest of you gear gobblers (my new self identity after initiating the bushcraft=religion thread), I spent a pile of time looking at gear at the big outdoor websites. In the wonderful world of on-line marketing, the fashion today is to have reviewers post on-line reviews of the products.
Like all summary statistics, you often see a large effect when 1) a product has few reviews and 2) somebody rated the product extremely poorly. Knowing this I rarely consider the actual averaged rating for the product unless there is a large number of reviews associated with it.
I often find myself reading the product reviews. Lately, I've been getting a kick out of the observation that the worst reviews for a given product are often associated with somebody who clearly didn't know how to use the gear, were using the gear in a completely inappropriate situation or just plain doing something that was insanely stupid and blaming their poor predicament on the product they purchased.
I know that we are supposed to try and stay positive, but this situation of bad product reviews produced by people who were in error rather than the product in error provides a lot of comical reading. This thread is in dedication to that phenomena.
So here are the rules. Find an actual product review posted to an internet shopping site. No videos allowed. If you want to post videos start your own thread.
Provide a posting of the product and then copy the bad review. What constitutes the bad^2 review in this case must be as follows.
1) The person performing the review provides enough details of their usage that you can ascertain that they are 'completely doing it wrong'.
Or
2) The person puts in some juicy details about their description of the product usage that clearly shows placing themselves in a silly situation
3) If paired with 1 or 2 makes a great example, the reviewer has no clear idea that they were at fault in how they were using the product or the situation they were actually in. They blame their poor outdoor experience fully on the product's so called failure when indeed it wasn't the product fault.
Finally, don't forget to post what the reviewer applied to as a rating and how that relates to the average rating of the product.
This should be fun. I'm on my way home now from work. I'll get one or two examples up when I get back home. Hopefully some of you will have posted up some gems while I'm on commute.
Like all summary statistics, you often see a large effect when 1) a product has few reviews and 2) somebody rated the product extremely poorly. Knowing this I rarely consider the actual averaged rating for the product unless there is a large number of reviews associated with it.
I often find myself reading the product reviews. Lately, I've been getting a kick out of the observation that the worst reviews for a given product are often associated with somebody who clearly didn't know how to use the gear, were using the gear in a completely inappropriate situation or just plain doing something that was insanely stupid and blaming their poor predicament on the product they purchased.
I know that we are supposed to try and stay positive, but this situation of bad product reviews produced by people who were in error rather than the product in error provides a lot of comical reading. This thread is in dedication to that phenomena.
So here are the rules. Find an actual product review posted to an internet shopping site. No videos allowed. If you want to post videos start your own thread.
Provide a posting of the product and then copy the bad review. What constitutes the bad^2 review in this case must be as follows.
1) The person performing the review provides enough details of their usage that you can ascertain that they are 'completely doing it wrong'.
Or
2) The person puts in some juicy details about their description of the product usage that clearly shows placing themselves in a silly situation
3) If paired with 1 or 2 makes a great example, the reviewer has no clear idea that they were at fault in how they were using the product or the situation they were actually in. They blame their poor outdoor experience fully on the product's so called failure when indeed it wasn't the product fault.
Finally, don't forget to post what the reviewer applied to as a rating and how that relates to the average rating of the product.
This should be fun. I'm on my way home now from work. I'll get one or two examples up when I get back home. Hopefully some of you will have posted up some gems while I'm on commute.