Slashdot Mirror


Do Retailers Often Screen User Reviews?

Mechanist.tm writes "I recently purchased a NAS from a well-known online computer component shop. I have purchased several items from the website and have never had much trouble before. That was until I realized what I had bought was a terrible NAS. All the reviews on the site from users seemed very good. After a little research, it became clear that the product in question was indeed terrible. After finding the product pretty much useless for its intended purpose, I proceeded to write a review for it on the website to inform other would-be buyers. After about a week, I noticed that the review never made it up there, so I wrote another one just in case. After several attempts to leave a negative review for the product, I realized that the website was screening reviews and only posting the ones that made the products look good. All the reviews on the website are positive; I've only found one at less than 3 out of 5 stars. Is this legal? Ethically speaking, it's wrong, and it's intentionally misleading to the customer. Is there a good place to report behavior like this? How common is this among online retailers who provide user reviews?"

96 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. Their site... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is their site, they are free to publish what they feel on it. Now what -is- illegal and misleading is if you were to write a negative review and they make it be a positive review. Similar to Engadget and Monster Cable.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Their site... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Moral of the story: Don't trust reviews on shop sites unless they also post the negative ones.

      Amazon post all reviews, with the exception of those that use profanity or have links to torrent sites etc. There was a story on /. about it years ago. Apparently it's a major pain the arse for them but it makes the site on of the best places to buy stuff too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Their site... by drooling-dog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is their site, they are free to publish what they feel on it.

      Not so sure about that. If they are misrepresenting the nature of their review site, and further misrepresenting what they're selling by censoring reviews, then that would seem to be a form of fraud. What you are suggesting is that fraud is legally OK if done on the property of the party that perpetrates it. IANAL, but this strikes me as an odd notion.

    3. Re:Their site... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Funny

      AnalPerfume (1356177)

      Just don't write any perfume reviews please...

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    4. Re:Their site... by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would consider it illegal advertising. The site misleads customers to believe they are reading actual user reviews (ALL reviews), which is simply not true. It's misleading and deceptive.

      If I found a site like that, I'd report them to consumeraffairs.org, FTC.gov, and any other site I can think of which screens companies. Hopefully the FTC would act to fine that company, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:Their site... by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this illegal? Why is this any different than a commercial from a movie pulling only the good quotes from Roger Ebert and Gene Shalit? The retailer is under no obligation to publish unfavorable reviews on their own website, whether written by professional reviewers or the public at large. Assuming the company is based in the US, from a First Amendment standpoint, the government cannot force them to publish bad reviews on their own website.

      --
      "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
    6. Re:Their site... by fbwhrdpmtajg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They cover that in the TOS that nobody ever reads.

    7. Re:Their site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not true here -- Amazon does remove negative reviews if the author requests it.

      Once, I posted a negative review of a book to Amazon.com, pointing out specific places where the book made errors. Within 24 hours, the review had disappeared, and simultaneously a "blog" post appeared on the product page where the author denounced and "rebutted" my review (which was no longer even visible.)

    8. Re:Their site... by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is their site, they are free to publish what they feel on it.

      Not so sure about that. If they are misrepresenting the nature of their review site, and further misrepresenting what they're selling by censoring reviews, then that would seem to be a form of fraud. What you are suggesting is that fraud is legally OK if done on the property of the party that perpetrates it. IANAL, but this strikes me as an odd notion.

      I'll play a little devil's advocate. Replies indicating that they don't know what that means will be summarily ignored.

      If you want a truthful, unbiased assessment of a company or any of its products and services, that company would be the very worst entity to ask. This applies, of course, to any media or forum directly under the control of that company. If people are naive and have not yet learned this from regular advertisements and TV commercials, it's safe to say that they are not going to learn this at all. The only purpose of having a legislature recognize this as illegal fraud would be to protect those people, who refuse to learn a few basic lessons, from themselves. This is true because it is otherwise within their power to realize these things unassisted. If that is so, then government intervention would only coddle and protect the sort of real-world ignorance that really does need a hard lesson or two. In other words, wouldn't it be better to discourage this sort of naive thinking (by letting it run its course if necessary) than to keep providing fertile ground for this sort of fraud and sending the government after everything that grows in this fertile ground?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    9. Re:Their site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whenever I review a product, I always look at the bad reviews first. I want to see if there is a commonality amongst them. If there aren't any bad reviews, I'm skeptical.

    10. Re:Their site... by bit01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this illegal?

      Don't know if it's illegal or not but it should be. They are misrepresenting the site as presenting all reviews, not just ones that they approve. That's fraud with material financial consequences.

      Given that Mechanist.tm wasn't aware of this they probably are misrepresenting the reviews.

      If they made clear that the site is not representative of all customer reviews then there should be no legal problem though it's still shady and I for one would be shopping elsewhere.

      ---

      The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".

    11. Re:Their site... by asaul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because unless they state they are only publishing positive reviews, it is misleading to show that all feedback from "users" is positive. It is deceptive to filter out the negatives as it misleadingly portrays the product as good based of what is supposedly unbiased user feedback as opposed to vendor advertising.

      For advertising, yes, of course you only show positive reviews, it stands to reason to choose what supports the product (movie etc).

      --
      "If everybody is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking" - Gen. George S. Patton
    12. Re:Their site... by faffod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But then can I trust bad reviews - or are the large number of negative reviews just a byproduct of people testing the site's review process

    13. Re:Their site... by obarel · · Score: 3, Funny

      100% of customers reported that the product made them look and feel 20 years younger(*).

      (*) percentage is of customers whose reviews were accepted. Results may differ. The company does not accept any responsibility what-so-ever. Terms and conditions apply.

    14. Re:Their site... by richmaine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thinking that something "should be illegal" is not particularly close to it being illegal. It sounds to you that you are just saying that it is unethical. I agree with that, but the point was that a prior poster said he "considered this to be illegal", and the parent asked why it was illegal.

      Saying it is unethical does not answer that question. You have to actually find a law that says it is illegal.

      Likewise, asaul says that it is illegal because it is misleading. Again, he doesn't cite any law against being misleading.

      Even blatantly lying is not, in general, illegal. There are cases where it is, but those are specific cases; there is no general law against lying. (Mom's law doesn't count here. :-))

      There are laws against false advertising, which are probably the closest things to applicable ones here. But the standards applied to that in practice tend to be awfully lenient. (Heck, as far as I can tell, darn near all advertising attempts to give false impressions in at least some way. Apparently the lawyers don't use the same standards that I do, since I don't see darn near all advertising slapped down.)

    15. Re:Their site... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apparently it's a major pain the arse for them but it makes the site on of the best places to buy stuff too.

      Even if I'm not buying there I check to see if the item I want has any reviews. I also do a quick google with "[product_name_model] problem" and see if there are a lot of negative forum posts. I don't think screening posts is illegal, but it's sure not right. I would also contact the BBB about it.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    16. Re:Their site... by PyroMosh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No.

      When Hyundai, or Ford, or Toyota run a car ad, they will often cite reviews from Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Edmund, and other publications. News flash: They cherry pick the best reviews. When Motor Trend says "the fit and finish of the interior surfaces is sub-par for it's class", they don't use that in the ad. This is not illgal, and I've not come across anyone who's suggested that it should be.

      Likewise, with one Exception (Glenn Beck), I've never read a negative review on a book's dust jacket. Authors and publishers are generally more savvy than that, and they are certainly under no obligation to put someone's scatrhing review of their book / movie / car / NAS / whatever on the site.

      This is not illegal marketing. There are only two differences from the examples I cited above.
      1) My examples use publishers / manufacturers, not online retailers.
      2) My examples use professional reviews, not user submissions on an online retailer's web site.

      But think about these differences. Are they relevant (legally)? For that to be the case, there would need to be laws or regulations on the books that would apply to one or more of these differences. I'm not aware of any laws that single out user reviews and require that they be treated differently from professional reviews, nor any that single out online merchants, and regulate how they market differently from others.

      I agree that it's shady, and that it would be better if the retailer(s) in question posted all reviews to instill confidence in customers' buying decisions on their sites. But unless you can point to a specific law, or regulation that disproves my previous paragraph, it's most certainly not illegal, just a bit sleazy.

    17. Re:Their site... by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>Why is this illegal?

      Because the law says that illegal advertising is a crime. So is advertising a price of, say $9.99, and then ringing it up as 19.99 at the register. (My former employer JCPenney got a huge fine for that.) So is making claims that are deceptive or misleading (see the lawsuits about 100MPG magnets for cars). I surmise that if this NAC company went before a judge, he would say the use of only positive reviews while leading the customer to think he/she is seeing ALL reviews, is deceptive and misleading.

       

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    18. Re:Their site... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The retailer is under no obligation to publish unfavorable reviews"

      He should be. Bear in mind, you are talking about a retailer, who presumably has a number of products for sale. If he puts up reviews at all, he should welcome both positive and negative reviews. That puts him in the position of being impartial - something that is always good for business.

      I like reading negative reviews - there have been times that I've read half a dozen positives, and a few negatives, and decided that the product's detractors were clueless boobs, then bought the product. Those clueless boobs actually gave credence to the positive reviews, IMHO.

      Like so many others have already said - if you see ONLY positive reviews with 5 star ratings, you should be suspicious.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    19. Re:Their site... by andymadigan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The question is whether the purchaser reasonably expected all reviews to be present. Since it's an online site where they could submit their own review, unless there was a notice to the effect of "we filter out reviews we don't like" it's possible to make the argument.

      On a small scale, the poster could sue the retailer. On a large scale, it may indeed be false advertising.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    20. Re:Their site... by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Glenn Beck has a negative review on his dust jacket? Why and from who?

      Anyway when we see reviews from Toyota, et cetera, we know those are biased commercials that have been censored by the company. We also know the reviewers are probably biased as well (getting kickbacks from the company). But when you see "What other people thought" on amazon.com then you expect non-biased opinions from people like yourself. It is that expectation that the company is abusing - it's a misleading and deceptive presentation.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    21. Re:Their site... by AmigaMMC · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Why is this illegal? Why is this any different than a commercial from a movie pulling only the good quotes

      Because you said it yourself, a commercial is a commercial and people know it's a commercial. When it comes to review people assume it's honest non-filtered opinion of consumers. If you pick what to publish or edit passages you're filtering.

    22. Re:Their site... by babyrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      of course illegal advertising is a crime - just like illegal theft and illegal murder are crimes.

    23. Re:Their site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Okay, I don't have a copy of black's law on my shelf:
          But let's summarize it as:

      1) It's intentional deception--a reasonable person would expect that a site with reviews would incorporate positive, as well as negative reviews. The removal of negative reviews suggests the absence of them.

      2) It was deception made for gain--they sold a product that they otherwise may not have sold

      You've got the definitive elements of fraud there, even though the statutes/definition vary.

    24. Re:Their site... by scheme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this illegal?

      Don't know if it's illegal or not but it should be. They are misrepresenting the site as presenting all reviews, not just ones that they approve. That's fraud with material financial consequences.

      Given that Mechanist.tm wasn't aware of this they probably are misrepresenting the reviews.

      If they made clear that the site is not representative of all customer reviews then there should be no legal problem though it's still shady and I for one would be shopping elsewhere.

      ---

      The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".

      Do you tell potential employers about every major mistake you've made in previous jobs or about the times you've slacked off or skipped out for one reason or another? If not, then you're not making it clear that your resume, cover letter, and job interviews aren't fully representative of your prior work. And as you said, it's fraud with material consequences. How about stuff that you're trying to sell like a car or a home?

      No one gives all the details about something they're trying to sell regardless of whether it's a piece of electronics, a car, or a home. The phrase caveat emptor has been around for at least 2000 years and probably a lot longer than that. As such, I don't think anyone should trust the reviews on a retailer's site entirely.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    25. Re:Their site... by Magic5Ball · · Score: 2, Informative

      Would the financial consequences requirement shield reviews at fossfor.us from legal scrutiny? They only permit ratings of "Great" and "Just OK", but when their reviews are syndicated (on the front page of /., for example) it's not clear that "Bad" isn't an option available to reviewers, so /every/ rating must be positive by design.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    26. Re:Their site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nope, my review didn't contain any of the above. It did point out the author's admission that he had no personal experience in the topic that he was writing about, which probably labeled the review as a personal attack and got it removed. However, this admission was part of the book being reviewed, and therefore was fair game for comment.

    27. Re:Their site... by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IANAL, but I believe that it would only become false advertising if the company referred to the site's comment board at a later date and said 'Look! Nobody has ever given us a bad review! Everybody at least likes our product!'

      Other than that, the company can arbitrarily decide to post only reviews that have the word 'chipmunk' in them. For instance. They have to make an assertion (express or strongly implied) *in an advertisement* that is patently false for it to be false advertising. Lies by omission don't count.

      Personally I think that such 'reviews' should be prominently titled 'testimonials' or some such. It *is* disgusting. But you should never trust a review on a site where the subject under review controls the content. /shrug

    28. Re:Their site... by GigaHurtsMyRobot · · Score: 3, Informative
      The entire back cover of his new book, Arguing with Idiots, is negative reviews. 7 of them.

      "Glenn Beck is an idiot." - Discover Magazine.

      "Leading the lunatic fringe." - Time Magazine.

      "A lying sack of dog mess." - Whoopi Goldberg.

      "A half-informed radio blowhard." - Vanity Fair.

      "Only in his wildest dreams could an actual suicide bomber hope to do as much damage to this country." - Keith Olbermann.

      "[A] frightfully strange man." - Tina Brown.

      "A vampire ... a 'death lover.'" - Roseann Barr.

      He likes that they don't like him. Olbermann is especially douchey.

    29. Re:Their site... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the UK this sort of thing falls under the "traders tort" law.

      Traders can say things like "cheapest price in the UK!" and it is accepted that this need not be verifiably true. A reasonable person would understand that the claim is basically bollocks and is not supposed to be taken seriously.

      In the same way it is expected that a reasonable person would not expect a trader to publish negative reviews of their products in their marketing material, be it on the packaging or on their web site. If that makes the OP "unreasonable" then I'd tend to agree with it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re:Their site... by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fox didn't get a ruling that it's news can be lies. They got a ruling stating that their stations can control the content of the news being reported and refuse to allow something to be reported regardless of the truthfulness of it. One of their attorneys (or was it a company representative) suggested that they could even control it if it is a lie in order to limit liability. The ruling never said a word about reporting lies, just controlling the content of the reporting and it was over a local affiliate news program in Florida so it's not clear if the principle would work outside of Florida.

      Also, you do not need a ruling. User responses are considered consumer endorsements which makes misrepresentations of the products illegal under federal law if the endorsements are reasonably considered as part of the purchasing consideration process. A site that displays the comments under the item in consideration would have to follow the false advertising rules and either place a disclaimer that's obvious to the consumer that they edited the negative responses or that results/performance isn't typical for all users.

      On another note, most state laws have consumer protections against false or misleading advertisements in the same light. For instance, in my state, representing that the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have; or whether the supplier knew at the time the consumer transaction was entered into of the inability of the consumer to receive a substantial benefit from the subject of the consumer transaction; could apply. This is because by removing negative reviews, the supplier knows of limitations and dissatisfaction with the product and presents it with an otherwise misleading approvals from select consumers. In the case of the op, if a negative reviews were present, he probably would have purchased a different product. His intent of posting a negetive review was specifically to inform future consumers of his experiences with the problem so they wouldn't be taken like he did. Federal and state laws regulate the extent to which a product can be represented.

    31. Re:Their site... by Romancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you tell potential employers about every major mistake you've made in previous jobs or about the times you've slacked off or skipped out for one reason or another? If not, then you're not making it clear that your resume, cover letter, and job interviews aren't fully representative of your prior work.

      Do you think that the interviewers think it is? Do you think that if you read a persons resume that it would be a fair assessment of their past work history and experience?

      Or would you accept that everybody that submits a resume is obviously biased and reporting on themselves is not a full and complete history. Since they have to include references and contact info for their previous jobs it seems that they are by default not trusted to be a complete and balanced source by themselves. So your example stands as it's own opposition. People do not tell about themselves when trying to impress someone to get a job and everybody knows it and expects no less than embellishment. Hence they ask for outside verification as well.

      How about stuff that you're trying to sell like a car or a home?

      If you are trying to sell a car or a home there are third parties that are expected to inspect these objects to ensure your statements are true, it's not expected that you are an expert in all the areas that are important in these cases. You are also judged on your trustworthiness in these cases. It's not the same as if the person was to filter the results of a termite inspection and only report the good parts, or if they altered the carfax report on the car. That's why there are these third party services, because people are not expected to be unbiased in their account of their own worth or the products they are trying to sell.

      Companies are a different matter.

      There are quite a few laws in place that people trust are being obeyed. It is illegal to advertise falsely that your product cures a disease or treats an illness.
      It is illegal to advertise a product of some value and then once the customer is ready to purchase it, switch to selling them an inferior product. (as a practice)
      There are many other laws about advertising because the business world needs trust to operate. And while it doesn't create the level playing field it means to, it does put into the minds of the populous that they can trust to some extent the claims of retailers. There is a big difference that may not be in the front of their minds though. That there is a big difference between an acknowledged advertisement on TV and a retailers own Website.

      To advertise on TV or even place banners through Google adds, the retailer must meet certain criteria. Small print, disclaimers, relevant details that go with their claims of a certain product. That's why we all see things like, "results not typical" "your results may vary" and "see retailer for details". These things don't help sales but they are required when advertising a claim. If they claim something without so much as an asterisk and it is not true, they could be in trouble. But here's the problem. If they have a Website that promotes their product and only has the most glowing reviews but does not claim that the reviews are representative or inclusive or even unpaid. It's not a claim that's false. They don't have to say that the reviews are anything, they could be just marketing people typing the company agenda. And we assume they are real reviews since they allow us to submit them as well. There are no laws in this area. they can delete your review and unless they use your name and change the words, it's within the law. It's a problem with what we expect in one area not applying to another. Like copyright and patents, most people don't know where one stops and the other begins. And I think that's the fault of the ones who are in change of the laws. We should learn them, but we should also not be expected to have law degrees to do so. Like anything that effects us all so much, there should be a brief attached that e

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    32. Re:Their site... by inviolet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No one gives all the details about something they're trying to sell regardless of whether it's a piece of electronics, a car, or a home. The phrase caveat emptor has been around for at least 2000 years and probably a lot longer than that.

      I do.

      Next time you sell your old car, try it. Write down everything you know about it that is wrong or bothersome. Give it to the buyer while he's inspecting the car. You'd be surprised how good it feels to deal honorably.

      Of course I know that nobody else will give me the same treatment, but I don't care. This is how I choose to move through our world.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    33. Re:Their site... by epine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are many advertising practices that are either illegal or will get you into immense hot water with the enforcement agency (FDA, FCC, FTC, others). I don't know every law or rule in this field, and I don't wish to. It strikes me that blatantly creating false impressions in the mind of casual consumers violates the spirit of other laws in this field which do exist. It would be nice to find out which law, or if there is no law, to figure why this gap exists in consumer misrepresentation where others don't.

      In the case where the reviews are heavily filtered, I'd happy enough the web site referred to the reviews as "selected reviews". One additional word to indicate that the reviews are not necessarily representative of the views filed. This would not be required when reviews are removed for violating terms of service (prices, personal attacks). If the terms of service indicate that unfavourable reviews can/will be removed, why does the site offer the ability to rate a product one star? I'd be happy if the FTC supplied some clarity around this.

      Before we had consumer protection laws, we had a thriving industry in snake oil. Their ghosts achieved Valhalla on the internet. Capitalism is worthless unless it consists of informed exchanges. I don't regard caveat emptorism as a desirable economic system.

  2. The real question is... by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Which shop?

    1. Re:The real question is... by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. This only stops when you name names and shame the bastards into transparency.

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    2. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I doubt that the site in question is "something brand new out of a chicken". I see negative reviews on that site all the time. In fact I almost always read the negative reviews first. If there is something truly bad about a product I am considering buying I want to know immediately.

    3. Re:The real question is... by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah. We should do a Microsoft article so we can show the world how shitty they are and make they bastards straighten up!

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    4. Re:The real question is... by cojsl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Newegg did something similar a couple years back (not claiming the OP refers to Newegg, just posting my personal experience with something similar Newegg did). I posted a negative review of an item, shortly thereafter Newegg emailed me asking to resolve my complaint about the item in exchange for removing the negative review. To their credit, Newegg resolved the issue, but the net result was to artificially alter the reviews of the product.

    5. Re:The real question is... by demonlapin · · Score: 2, Informative

      I rather like what Newegg does now - if there is a complaint, and it is resolved, they leave up the bad review but attach the manufacturer's response (usually "send it back, we'll replace it and pay both ways shipping").

    6. Re:The real question is... by vxvxvxvx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      +1

      Newegg even lets you display only the bad reviews. I've also seen reviews suggesting you purchase products elsewhere when shipping might be an issue. It doesn't seem like Newegg does much screening at all. Probably has any prices listed with dollar signs stripped and any URL's or competitors stripped automatically and then goes with that.

      One thing to keep in mind when reading reviews at any site though is that the ratio of positive to negative reviews differs wildly. Websites that make the review process difficult are likely only going to get reviews from people very strongly opinionated and probably have a higher negative ratio. Websites that make the review process very easy will have more reviews.

    7. Re:The real question is... by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

      The real question is... which shop?

      Apparently this guy's summary had that negative information removed.

    8. Re:The real question is... by noidentity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I posted a negative review of an item, shortly thereafter Newegg emailed me asking to resolve my complaint about the item in exchange for removing the negative review. To their credit, Newegg resolved the issue, but the net result was to artificially alter the reviews of the product.

      I don't get it; they resolved the issue, so that you had nothing negative to post in the end. Let's say that instead of posting the negative review, you had contacted them of the problem to see if they would resolve it. If they hadn't, you would have posted the review; if they had, you wouldn't have, since there was no problem. The latter is what happened.

    9. Re:The real question is... by nxtw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably something brand new out of a chicken.

      Not only do I see a lot of negative reviews on Newegg, I see a lot of negative reviews that indicate ignorance by the reviewer - usually, the reviewer didn't properly research the product before purchasing or doesn't know what they are doing. I also see occasional four-star reviews that claim a product is awesome, but only deserves four stars because it doesn't have some feature found in more expensive products.

    10. Re:The real question is... by Mechanist.tm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Which shop?

      overclockers

    11. Re:The real question is... by causality · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I posted a negative review of an item, shortly thereafter Newegg emailed me asking to resolve my complaint about the item in exchange for removing the negative review. To their credit, Newegg resolved the issue, but the net result was to artificially alter the reviews of the product.

      I don't get it; they resolved the issue, so that you had nothing negative to post in the end. Let's say that instead of posting the negative review, you had contacted them of the problem to see if they would resolve it. If they hadn't, you would have posted the review; if they had, you wouldn't have, since there was no problem. The latter is what happened.

      I like the idea of leaving the negative reviews up and attaching the manufacturer's response. My reasoning is simple: shit happens. At some point there will be problems of some kind. That's a given, and a corporation's attempt to cover up this fact of life to give an illusion of perfect products that don't have even a very small percentage of defects looks pretty damned suspicious to me.

      What's important to me is when a company is willing to stand by their products and take care of its own mistakes. Do they give the customer a certain benefit of doubt, or do they treat complaining customers as though they don't believe a word they say? Do they make you otherwise jump through hoops? Do they admit fault and take responsibility and take reasonable measures to fix any problems they cause? Is it an uphill battle to get them to do the right thing? These are more important to me than how well they can censor their forums. A negative review that shows me a company bending over backwards to make things right isn't negative to me at all.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    12. Re:The real question is... by Libertarian001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that's a load of BS. If the complaint is lousy customer service, then that's not handled by a product review and is more appropriately handled through the retailer's customer service department, the BBB, your credit card company, etc. If they get the customer service complaint resolved, the info should still be available so that shoppers know that there's a possibility they'll be hassled.

      If the complaint is that the product is a flaming PoS then there's nothing that the retailer can do, other than take it back. See above. If the product is a flaming PoS and it's on the manufacturer's site then, even if resolved, the complaint should still be visible. Appended to not that it's been resolved, and how so, but still visible.

      Don't want negative reviews on record? Then work on your customer service and make sure you're not sending people a flaming PoS. It's really that simple.

      Under "David's System of Justice" that crap is fraud. You lie about your product to get me to spend money? Fraud. Doesn't do what you say it will do? Fraud. Breaks from normal, expected usage after two days? Fraud. As a manufacturer, your responsibility is to tell me the truth about your product to earn my business. If your product is a flaming PoS, then you need to spend more money on the engineering side of the house to fix those problems and less on the advertising side trying to defraud me.

    13. Re:The real question is... by Smauler · · Score: 5, Funny

      I personally like this one:

      Pros: Blue LED fan
      Cons: I bought 2 of these the top heatsink fell onto the bottom card and burned down my house and killed my Family. Why
      Other Thoughts: This product is unsafe and should be recalled (but they wont because they dont care) Not neweggs fault they are the best

  3. It's fairly common by mikael_j · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unfortunately a lot of retailers do this, this is one of many very good reasons not to use a retailer. If there are no "1/10 - This --- fucking sucks, it broke after a week and was barely usable before that" reviews then you know they're screening (or just sell great products but that isn't very likely).

    /Mikael

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    1. Re:It's fairly common by mikael_j · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that they manipulate what customer feedback they are willing to show in order to increase sales is enough for me to take my business elsewhere, and there are plenty of trustworthy businesses that don't censor user reviews.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:It's fairly common by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I usually look for negative reviews first when considering a product. I will google for "$product sucks". I try and see why people think it sucks. If I don't see any negative reviews, I know that no one is actually buying the product.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
  4. Never by tukang · · Score: 3, Informative

    rely on reviews or testimonials that are posted on the sellers website. Reviews on third-party websites are generally more reliable as there's usually less of a conflict of interest but even those aren't always real so buyer beware.

  5. Its no different by madcat2c · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Than a newspaper editor not running political stories about things he or she doesn't like. Not ethical, but also not illegal. That's the reason why I normally look for unpaid third party review sites for hardware or software, or at least someone in the industry that can recommend something they have used personally.

  6. Seriously by rarel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After a little research, it became clear that the product in question was indeed terrible.

    That's your first and most important mistake here. Never ever trust a single source, especially if they're the ones getting your moneys. I always check several sites and try to have feedback from actual users before making any tech purchase. That shit's usually expensive enough, if it also blows up in my face two days after I buy I'll be pretty pissed...

    1. Re:Seriously by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm going through it with eCost right now. I guess I'll file a BBB claim, because they're not getting back to me as promised. They sold an amp with text that made it look like it did component to HDMI upconversion when it doesn't. Now they don't want to take it as a return. (I know lots of people have problems with eCost, but I've been buying from them for some time with no problems. Have even done a return before.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. A comment on Amazon by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Informative

    At least with Amazon.com, one of the best-known websites with user reviews, I can attest that they welcome negative reviews. I've been reviewing there for the last nine years, more to focus my own thoughts on what I read, listen to or use than to guide others in purchases. Still, sometimes I've been scathing about a product and encouraged all and sundry not to buy it, and my review continues to be visible as the years go by. Rare situations where a review was not posted usually occurred because I tripped some keyword meant to discourage profanity, and a simple rewrite of the sentence in question was all it took to get the review up.

    1. Re:A comment on Amazon by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 3, Informative

      newegg.com doesn't seem to be biasing their reviews. For any given product, even if it's good you get some people who get one that shows up DOA or has some other manufacturing defect. The interesting thing about newegg is that they allow the manufacturer to write a response to a review. Most of the time it is just the manufacturer stating that the customer who bought the bad item should contact customer service, but it is interesting to read which manufacturers actually respond. EVGA in particular seems to pay close attention to the reviews on newegg (my personal experience, since I bought some EVGA components, I read the reviews even after I bought it to see what people think).

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
  8. http://www.resellerratings.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.resellerratings.com/ - post your honest review there.

    1. Re:http://www.resellerratings.com by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      http://www.resellerratings.com/ - post your honest review there.

      They have a policy of removing bad reviews - if, get this, there are too many of them.
      They say its to avoid a vendor being 'targetted.' Seems to me that if a vendor does something bad enough to get a mob riled up to complain en masse, they probably deserve what they get.

      They are also vulnerable to astro-turfing. I've witnessed it myself. Tiger Direct, known for being one of the absolute worst places to deal with if anything goes wrong with your order, had a well deserved rating down around 1 or so. It was pretty consistent for a couple of years and then practically over night (well, more like a span of 3-6 months) their rating soared. The reason it changed? A massive influx of positive reviews at a volume at least an order of magnitude higher than for the previous years.

      Since resellerratings keeps a sort of history of reviews, you can still see this gaming of the ratings by sorting tiger-direct's reviews by date and looking at the oldest. Unfortunately, the database of reviews doesn't go back all the way to the start, so you'll see about 6 months of sparse true reviews and then the onslaught of astroturfing kicks in.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  9. Re:Hmm by schnikies79 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've posted more than a few negative reviews on newegg over the years and I've never had one filtered or modified. A couple of times the manufacturer replied to my review directly and offered to remedy my problem.

    --
    Gone!
  10. Come on... by Chysn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...when you're trying to expose unethical behavior or deceptive practices, the phrase "a well-known online computer component shop" is hollow and flaccid.

    --
    --I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
    -- See?
    1. Re:Come on... by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...when you're trying to expose unethical behavior or deceptive practices, the phrase "a well-known online computer component shop" is hollow and flaccid.

      Nonsense. A well-known online computer component reviewer, a well-known online game reviewer, and THREE well-known world leaders all told me yesterday that it was a GREAT idea!

  11. Overstock.com does not publish negative reviews by jestill · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have had my reviews not published on Overstock when they were negative. I tried multiple times to get the review online, and I quit buying anything from overstock without first finding external reviews. I have never had a review not accepted from Amazon, even when they were negative.

    --
    "Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" -- Homer
  12. Overstock.com heavily screens reviews by fbwhrdpmtajg · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have written many reviews of varying content and rating for a couple products on Overstock.com and whenever the review has a possibility of impacting sales negatively it is never posted. Not ethical but it's their prerogative as they are the ones publishing it. There is a conflict of interest but making this type of thing illegal would be a slippery slope. Just take it as a matter of course and get on with it.

    1. Re:Overstock.com heavily screens reviews by plasmacutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a conflict of interest but making this type of thing illegal would be a slippery slope.

      A slipper slope to what? A market where consumers are properly protected from corporate abuse?

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    2. Re:Overstock.com heavily screens reviews by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now, that would be a nightmare. Who protects the poor, defenseless corporations from those vile consumers?

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  13. Cue worthless accusation by pantherace · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Post the site and product, or shut the hell up. Seriously, Isn't what you are doing, deliberately obscuring the site, and hiding useful information, the same as what they are doing. By presenting it the way you have, you've essentially attacked the reputation of all well-known online computer component shops. Could be newegg, NCIX, ZZF, amazon, tigerdirect, buy.com, bestbuy You've provided no specifics, and as such no valid evidence, even in your anecdote. I'm all for tarring and feathering companies *if they deserve it*. Your post makes no particular case for your review being rejected because it was bad, and not for using profanity, or something similar. Post the site, product and your review. Otherwise, if you aren't willing to name the site or product for the benefit of all, I hope that one of the others sues you for slandering their reputation.

  14. Rule of thumb, always check more than one source by curmudgeous · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've come across sites that seem to post only good reviews (which always makes me suspicious), and sites that choose to sort owner comments by number of "stars" given so that the good comments bubble to the top. It's always best to check product reviews from multiple sources before buying.

  15. buy.com by danpritts · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've had this happen at buy.com - i bought this:

    http://www.buy.com/prod/ifrogz-iphone-3g-3gs-luxe-soft-touch-case-red-black/q/loc/101/208441113.html

    and it was a piece of junk, finish ruined after a couple days in my pocket. It broke in pieces after 2 months.

    I posted reviews to buy.com (where i bought it) and they magically never appeared.

    I won't shop there anymore. Amazon rules.

  16. a well-known online computer component shop by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    a well-known online computer component shop

    Yea, it is absolutely absurd to have made this post and not identify the seller in question. The poster questions if a seller can get away with this, and them demonstrates that they can by failing to even say who they are or what the bad product is. The whole post is extremely pointless. If the original review was this void of information then maybe there is an alternate reason it was never accepted for listing.

    At least we can see that the Slashdot editors can not be accused of editing, or making informed choices about which stories to post.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  17. Yes. by benjamindees · · Score: 5, Informative

    Home Depot "approves" reviews and failed to post a negative review I gave for an air conditioner recently.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  18. Probably shouldn't blame the seller by FloydTheDroid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The company I work for uses a third party (bazaarvoice) for our reviews so we cannot do such shenanigans. Since we don't just sell one brand we actually want the customer to know which product is the best so that they continue to buy from us. I'm sure this is how all resellers operate so what I suspect actually happened is that the review did make it to the site but the manufacturer probably had someone log in as a bunch of separate users and mark the review as objectionable so that it was taken down.

    As others have already mentioned; you can't trust reviews. My personal policy with this is ignore the 1 star - "was broken when I got it" and the 10 star - "changed my life" reviews since they don't actually have any useful information. Also, a lot of sites track user submissions so you can guess that if a person writes an unusually long review about how great their new $30 vacuum is but they've never written another review that it's probably bogus.

  19. Sidewiki by ziggy_az · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The easy answer to this is http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=157109 Google Sidewiki. *IF* users start using sidewiki for reviewing products on vendor sites, the vendor has no ability to moderate the reviews. Doesn't mean they won't start astroturfing the sidewiki but it would make it more expensive :)

    --
    "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
  20. Re:Hmm by lukas84 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is that a good or a bad review?

  21. quality filter by DaveGod · · Score: 2, Informative

    Some sites have a default where the most favourable ratings (5/5 etc) are the ones shown by default - a link at the bottom allows viewing all reviews. I can think of one that has no apparent incentive to dupe the viewer, and personally if I was manager of the others I would certainly be more concerned about repeat business, and how costly returns are.

    My assumption is that less favourable reviews tend to be the least accurate, a guess held up by viewing the negative comments which repeatedly complained about issues that were obviously completely unrelated, were laughably unrealistic expectations for the price, the product was not designed for or were addressed in the description. People use the reviews system as a forum to ask questions, giving a zero rating.

    Good reviews meanwhile filled in any blanks in the description (often these would be major issues for some people), noted the build quality etc and gave a personal opinion on the product in the context of price. Personally I found these much more informative.

    No doubt some sites use it just to make sales, but I think there's an element of filtering for quality too.

  22. Shooting themselves in the foot by harmonise · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to an article that I read, a mix of negative and positive reviews makes the product more attractive than only positive reviews. It seems that this retailer is probably preventing sales by not letting negative reviews through.

    --
    Cory Doctorow talking about cloud computing makes as much sense as George W Bush talking about electrical engineering.
  23. That's a bit cynical by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think there are a lot of salespeople that would prefer that this sort of behavior was penalized because it undermines their profession as a whole. Will they give you a hard sell, try to give you the positives? Yes. But to out and out lie is something the best salespeople that I know would never do. They might be aggressive, but they are honest. Besides, the easiest customer to get is the one you already got. If you, as a salesman, lie to your customer, you will not get repeat business from them.

    --
    This is my sig.
  24. legal system by camgirlshide · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Part of the problem may be the legal system in the US. I once ran a review site where users were allowed to post comments. In one case, I was getting a ton of negative comments posted about one particular other website. I assumed (and still do) that these comments were legitimate due to the sheer volume of different users posting them and I never edited for content. Then, I got a lawsuit for defamation. Yea, I was protected legally and won, but it costs a ton of money to defend yourself against frivolous lawsuits. The best thing for most of these retailers is probably to just not allow user submitted reviews at all which is what I do now.

  25. I absolutely rely on Amazon, I just wish ... by QuatermassX · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ... that the product reviews carried over onto the UK site. I know there are all manner of reasons why this isn't quite possible, but the US site is a indispensable resource for fairly comprehensive, non-BS user reviews.

    It's a shame Amazon doesn't run Consumer Reports-esque mini-sites for popular product lines. Now you've inspired me to contribute more reviews to the UK site!

  26. Re:Hmm by BearInTheWoods · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've posted more than a few negative reviews on newegg over the years and I've never had one filtered or modified.

    I have. In fact, I posted in detail about it back in Aug 2005: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158055&cid=13241557

    I'd submitted a fair, honest, but harsh review comparing 2 different modems I'd purchased -- 1 great, 1 lousy. NewEgg rejected my review of the lousy modem and took my review of the great one. I couldn't see any point where my rejected submission violated any of NewEgg's guidelines (included in that post).

    I even went so far as to "soften" the language of the harsh review and re-submit it, but it was also rejected.

    I like NewEgg but make no mistake about it -- they are (or at least were) filtering bad reviews to some extent.

  27. So where DO you look for reviews? by Telvin_3d · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, on a slightly related note, where DO people go for hardware reviews? In my experience sites that are not obviously corporate/bought are pretty rare on the ground. And the independent sites tend to focus on only bleeding edge gaming hardware.

    So where should I be looking for honest reviews of consumer grade routers or printers or LCDs? Everyday hardware stuff. These days I mostly go by the comments and reviews on NCIX and newegg, but a more focused approach would be nice.

    1. Re:So where DO you look for reviews? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Amazon or Newegg, simply for sheer volume of reviews. Buy mostly from newegg because of the reasonable return policy.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:So where DO you look for reviews? by germansausage · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In Canada - try NCIX.com. Disclaimer, I don't have any relationship with them other than to buy stuff there. Reviews appear to be mostly unfiltered. You will see 1 star and 2 star reviews, even for popular products.

  28. What site? by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 2

    Why didn't the submitter say what site it was, I would like to know. The best way to stop this practice would be to let everyone know the site was doing it.

  29. 2 words by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    eBay feedback

    They'll nix feedback just like other sites nix reviews, if they determine that in their judgement, they think the item was bought for the sole purpose of entering negative feedback, for example.

    And an expansive, ever increasing list of reasons.

    sellers will no longer be able to leave negative/neutral feedback for buyers

    And a comprehensive feedback removal policy.

    Examples:

    But at least they are honest enough and tell you (somewhat) what they will remove.

    Most people casually browsing the site however (just as most people browsing retailers sites) have no idea that sites provide policies that allow negative ratings to be stricken from the record, and their effects on "stars" and rating score to be removed, at the whim of someone whose interests are in more sales.

  30. Never buy 5 Star by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative

    I never buy a product that doesn't have at least one review panning it. Any decent product that sells a lot of units is going to have a minimum of two or three buyer who, for whatever reason, thought it was crap. Even if their complaint is that it shipped slow, that's something. That generally shows that the retailer isn't round-filing bad reviews. No product is a panacea for everyone, so if you read the 1, 2, and 3 star reviews and find that their complaints wouldn't apply to you, you can probably safely buy it.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  31. Newegg posts negative reviews by rlk · · Score: 2, Informative

    They appear to allow the manufacturer to rebut negative reviews after the fact, but there are plenty of negative (even highly negative) reviews there

  32. Report it to consumerist.com by celeb8 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've found the consumerist does a great job of making things like this heard.

  33. Which one? by YuppieScum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    .com? .co.uk? .com.au?

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
    1. Re:Which one? by Mechanist.tm · · Score: 5, Informative

      .co.uk

  34. The other side of negative reviews by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Recently, while shopping for a digital camera to give as a gift, I hunted through a number of online vendors, including Best Buy (mostly because I have credit with them) and NewEgg, both of whom publish negative reviews. What I discovered was that the majority of the reviews were negative on practically everything I looked at. The end result was that I bought another of the same model that I already had and knew was good. This was considerably more expensive than I had planned, but since it was a gift for someone important to me, I sucked it up and did it.

    On other occasions, looking for computer equipment, I've noticed the same phenomenon. But in this area, I'm knowledgeable enough to notice that many of the negative reviews are written by people who just don't understand the technology well enough to even operate the devices. And of course, people who have bad experiences with a product are generally more motivated to complain about it than people who have good experiences with a product are motivated to praise it.

    While it's certainly unethical for a vendor to censor reviews -- without at least prominently announcing that they are censoring them -- I have to question the value of reviews by the general public in the first place.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  35. Crutchfield Edited My Review by uptheriver · · Score: 3, Informative

    It took several weeks for Crutchfield to publish the review of the item that I bought from them a few months back. I was holding off on reviewing my experience, but they went as far as sending me an e-mail inviting me to post a review, so I did. I bought a new speaker from them which cost several hundred dollars. When it arrived, It was very dusty and it was obvious that it had been taken apart. They sent me a replacement in two days and sent a few apologies, both in e-mail and in snail mail. Regardless, I described my experience and in my review I said "Come on, Crutchfield! You can do better than that! You charge MSRP!!!" Somehow, that phrase was left out of my review. Now, I know that they own the website. This, PERHAPS gives them editorial control. Perhaps. However...if you invite my to review my experience, why not have the guts to post it in its entirety? Maybe you will learn something and maybe your customers will as well. I have not purchased anything from them since.

  36. sorry, nas fail by treat · · Score: 2, Informative

    All cheap NAS solutions suck. Sorry.

    If you are not buying a netapp, you need to think about the suck-factor of your NAS solution versus hosting it on a Linux or even Windows server.

    I have never seen a NAS solution - even high end ones - that I consider acceptable, besides the Netapp.

    It is a tough call whether a given high-end NAS solution (betsides netapp) is better that a software RAID on a cheap server.

    I have never seen a super-low-end NAS solution that was acceptable even for MP3s or backups. The hassle of failure and data loss will quickly exceed the cost savings, even if it's just for non-critical storage where data loss is no problem.

    Basically, either go Netapp or set up a Linux server with software RAID. All other solutions are distant third/fourth/fifth.

    In between those two choices, a Solaris server doing software RAID with ZFS is better than Linux's software RAID. NFS server quality is about equal (it is absolutely no longer true that Solaris's NFS server is far better than Linux's).

    If you need redundancy, a pair of Linux machines with heartbeat and DRBD (therefore two copies of the data) will be far cheaper than any sever-based solution that involves redundant servers sharing storage with no single point of failure.

    Sorry, this is just a fact of life. Expensive storage is expensive because you're paying for the manageability, reliability, availability. Cheap storage throws these all away to meet a price point, and ends up making you wish you had just done it on a server.

    What are the problems with cheap storage, especially a NAS? Rather than listing every problem I've ever seen, how about I give you an example of the design apathy. A cheap NAS may have never been tested by the vendor in the case of a failing drive. Pulling a drive out while it's running is too clean of a failure to be considered anything more than a preliminary test (however some cheap storage can't even handle this!). I've even seen higher end storage where this was basically the case.

  37. Make it public by gorbachev · · Score: 2, Informative

    This retailer is seriously screwing its customers by hiding problems in product it sells. I would absolutely avoid shopping with the retailer if I knew who it was.

    Consumerist.com, owned by Consumer Reports, is doing a pretty good job exposing anti-consumer behavior by companies. I would tip them off about this.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  38. Re:And who made the product? by Mechanist.tm · · Score: 2, Informative

    the product was raidsonic IB-NAS4220-B. It is a terrible NAS. Has loads of issues with Makes of Hard Disks. I contacted the manufacturer and they were less than helpful. Pretty much ignoring the communities problems with their product. If you look into it you will find alot of issues with it. Dont reccommend it to anyone. In the process of hopefully returning it. Thanks to everyone for their interest.

  39. Re:And who made the product? by Kuad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I bought the same and also posted a negative review on Overclockers that never appeared. I eventually wrote the Icybox off as a hard-learned lesson and just leave a PC on all the time instead.