Slashdot Mirror
Why You Shouldn't Trust Internet Comments
sciencehabit writes "A new study suggests that all the reviews you read on Yelp and Amazon are easily manipulated. It's not that companies are stacking the deck, necessarily, it's that a few positive comments early on can influence future commenters. In fact, when researchers gamed the system on a real news aggregation site, the items received fake positive votes from the researchers were 32% more likely to receive more positive votes compared with a control (abstract). And those comments were no more likely than the control to be down-voted by the next viewer to see them. By the end of the study, positively manipulated comments got an overall boost of about 25%. However, the same did not hold true for negative manipulation. The ratings of comments that got a fake down vote were usually negated by an up vote by the next user to see them."
This comment is IMMENSELY trustworthy!
Nothing new here, move on...
What an excellent report. I read this to my Son and he loved it, would recommend to anyone and definitely read again. 5*
I've been here for over a decade and I STILL have yet to see Natalie Portman naked and petrified, despite all the hype.
Also, I miss OOG The Caveman.
is the best slashdot thread we've seen all week! I love it!
This is by far the most insightful treatment I've ever read on this important issue. Everyone who does business on the Internet must read this valuable study.
If someone has a bad experience, they will be pissed off and want to leave a bad comment. Often, that is the only recourse for a shitty service offered, or if a refund/exchange is no offered.
If someone has a genuinely good experience, they may be happy and want the product/business to do well, so they will leave a comment to aid in that.
I would think the only influence comes from choosing based on comments, not on leaving comments.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
We are all optimistic people at heart.
What's interesting about the study is:
1) The manipulation was a single positive or negative vote applied at random immediately when the article went live.
2) People would tend to correct false negatives, but amplify false positives.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I trust the article that there may be subtle changes in future comments due to past comments. However, there is still a very valid difference between a 5-star item with 2,000 comments and a 1-star item with three or four comments, and that is good enough for me.
Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
Would comment again.
My hypothesis:
1) Products with positive comments are more likely to be purchased.
2) People identify themselves by their choices, and no one wants to make a bad choice. Ergo, almost by definition, any choice people make is "the right one". At the very least, people are predisposed to liking what they spent money on.
Remember; When discussing all things retail, it's not how good the product is, but how well it satisfied the need. At least half the time, that need is largely imaginary.
Sure, I could RTFA, but this is more fun.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I'm always glad to hear about research like this myself, but this has severe ethics problems. You don't con people to show how easy it is to con the people. I know that rationalization is popular with some segment of you "hackers" out there, but whenever social scientists do this, they end up getting hasled about it.
No one would believe it anyway after this article.
When I check reviews, one of the first things I do is check the negative reviews. Why? Because half the one-stars are often jackasses with no clue what product and/or service they were buying. Other times, knowledgable and otherwise reasonable people have found the service or product being rated to be inadequate in some significant way.
And then I look for high ratings to see if they are reviewing the product in a reasonable manner. From there, I make my own decisions regarding the validity of both sides.
Anyone who decides just based on the stars/review-based numbers is a fool.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
It's not even comments. The paper refers to "upvotes" which makes it pretty clear that the study took place on Reddit and involved incrementing/decrementing the score when an article went live, by a single point.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Probably one of the best stories EVAR posted in the history of Slashdot, superb! 5/5 stars! My friends and I all read the story at work, then we ordered Chinese Food. The food arrived SOOPER early and was delicious. The Orange Beef and Sweet and Sour Chicken were DELICIOUS! I should know, I own the restaurant I'm posting this for on Yelp!
My wife has posted negative reviews on a certain vendor's website (from real product experience, not trolling) when a product she bought was unsatisfactory.
This elicited an immediate email from customer service offering various deals to bribe/entice her to change or withdraw the review. Companies are free to do what they wish on their website but that still struck me as disingenuous.
But how much less likely are you to down-mod a score-5 tweet than a score-1? And how much more likely are you to read-and-upvote a red firehose submission than an indigo?
Isn't this *everyone's* rating on eBay, and yet eBay is 99% populated by crooks at this point?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
that should have said "comment" not "tweet."
Your hosts file comments are not trustworthy.
The subject of this comment is true.
There is no value in positive comments.
If you're considering to buy something, you want to know where it fails, not where it succeeds.
Moreover I personally would never leave a positive comment. If it works as advertised, life can go on as normal. If it doesn't, then I leave a comment.
To use an example from /., it's not at all uncommon to see a comment go completely unnoticed from moderators for an hour, and then get a +1 from somebody, and within 30 minutes have gone from Score:1 or Score:2 to Score:5.
Bandwagon effects are quite well-known. After all, all your friends are paying attention to them! It seems to be a useful psychological reaction: If all your friends and family are jumping off the bridge, chances are you will too on the theory that they probably have a good reason to do so.
I am officially gone from
That's why I go straight for the bad reviews and see what people are actually saying about the product.
Technoli
(Just checking its validity)
A subtle astroturfing is one thing, but many of the fake postings are pretty hilariously transparent. Good help is hard to find.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
I won't say who, but a few years ago I had a temporary SQL admin contract with a very large company. I remember the day they hired a good 20+ people who's job it was to do nothing but post fake reviews and make fake blog posts all day long. The called it "Professional Blogging". I've been disgusted by the lack of ethics and misguided moral compass of companies before, but to actually see something like that go down really shocked and disgusted me to my core.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWdD206eSv0
Especilly true of Slashdot
Especilly true of Slashdot
Especilly true of Slashdot
Assuming the researched posted fake reviews real businesses and products, isn't there an ethic issue with this research.
I wouldn't like to be the owner of an otherwise good restaurant that ended up getting lots of bad reviews just because some researchers' coin flip decided my restaurant should get bad reviews for their research.
It just seems a tad unethical to try and randomly ruin businesses for a research paper.
Perhaps we should do some research on what happens when you randomly bankrupt researchers.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Back in the old days, before the Internet turned 'reading' into 'scanning' and the average attention span dropped to 6 seconds, there was this concept called 'critical reading'.
The basic premise is that you have to read the content of a written work to see WHAT they say, not just the overall tone or summation.
For instance, I was reading a review of a restaurant this morning, and most of the reviews were positive except for 1 '1 Start' rating. Upon reading the content of the '1 star review' I find that the guy is upset because he was not allowed to charge less than $3.50 on his credit card. Nothing about the food, service, etc... Well that isn't relevant to me, so I can ignore that review.
I read another review of a restaurant where most of the reviews were positive, but there was 1 '1 Star rating'. Upon reading the comments, I find that the restaurant serves sodas in the can (and charges for them by the can) and that the reviewer's children were served canned peaches with their breakfast. This IS relevant to me, as I have no intention of eating at a restaurant that serves fruit out of a can, particularly with the prices listed in their menu. I can open cans all by myself thanks.
It's like with game reviews. Even a game that gets a 7 might be something I might want to play depending on the particular aspects of the game. Maybe the reasons it got a 7 are problems I can deal with because something else about the game is appealing.
And yet I fully realize that very few people, if anyone, will actually read this post, so I will close with a summation so that the vast majority will have something to scan and absorb without having to actually use their brains.
SUMMATION: LEARN TO THINK YOU SHEEP PEOPLE!
I thought you couldn't put anything on the Internet that isn't true....
that is because people do not understand the 5 star system. The "ok" is the 3 stars, 4 and 5 are for exceptionally good, but a staggering amount of people think that 5 is the "ok", exceptional do not get any more than five and they only keep subtracting from 5, instead of having a median an add and subtract. The trouble is, if you do it that way, you blur the line between "ok" and "exceptional", putting the "ok" at the level of exceptional.
and it cannot be trusted!
I've certainly noticed that when I am one of the first to post on a Slashdot story, it tends to set the tone for many comments to follow. This was perhaps most noticeable when I pointed out all the BS in a certain anti-patent propaganda story. Commenters did some critical thinking and mostly agreed the story was a load of BS. It's apparent from other similar stories that without someone setting the tone, Slashdot readers generally revel in anti-patent propaganda, expanding it beyond the already BS claims in TFA of the day.
I only trust Amazon product comments if they are vetted and posted to http://leasthelpful.com/
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
A++++ wuld read again
And probably will when it gets duped in three days time.
I had to retract one + because of a missing word in the summary:
In fact, when researchers gamed the system on a real news aggregation site, the items that received fake positive votes from the researchers were 32% more likely to receive more positive votes compared with a control
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
informative and good coupons. best cat videos.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
"Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative" says the song. Same thing with upvotes.
This thread burned down my house, killed all my family, and kicked my dog. This is the worst thread ever, please don't read it or you can end up like me!
Everytime I look to buy something I am not not an expert on or are on the fence about quality, I look up reviews and sort by rating. And I look at negative ratings first because a vendor or retailer won't pad a product with negative reviews. And even though there will always be negative reviews from people who dont have a clue or give little to no info, there are som rea gems out there that give you a clear picture of what you are getting into.
Obligatory anecdotes:
When looking on newegg I sort by lowest score first and read the reviews. You always have some dummies who obviously have no idea what they are doing and rate 1 star because of a mistake they made. But you also run across some genuinely informative negative reviews which are more influential to me than positive reviews. For example, I was looking to buy a uATX board from ECS that had the AMD bobcat CPU onboard. It was perfect, had extra PCI shots for SATA cards for a low power Linux server box. It turns out in a few of the negative reviews there was an IRQ bug that severely impacted performance. I was close to buying it but then scratched it off my list.
Recently I was also looking to purchase a generator from a coworker who bought it after hurricane sandy but never used it, the box is unopened. The brand name was Generac and I have owned two other Generac products, a power washer and a 4kw generator. Both of those machines went south after little use, the generators exhaust valve stuck open when the valve seal went bad and allowed oil to seep down the valve and seize it (I fixed that but it never ran quite right, stalled and was a bitch to start). The power washer engine needed its carb rebuilt and then the water pump blew a shaft seal. But that was 6+ years ago and I figured Generac got their shit together by now. After reading negative reviews on Amazon I came to understand that Generac will try to weasel out of warranty repairs and "authorized" repair shops frequently change as they get shafted after Generac refuses to reimburse them for warranty repairs already performed. There were also negative reviews that warned of blown stator coils after a few hours use and lemons that wouldn't start out of the box. Since the generator could not be returned to the original vendor I took a pass even though I would get a sweet deal ($200 off retail as he wanted to dump it). Maybe it would have worked fine but I didn't want to risk losing 800 bucks and damage my business reputation.
As a holder of 5 PhD's, I can say that this article is unequivocally incorrect. For a small fee, (plus processing and handling), I will be happy to share the truth with any requesters.
This post's subject is untrustworthy
You can see the phenomenon on Slashdot itself.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Sorry if my english isn't correct, I am from Spain. I think many opinions on internet websites may be just interested comments of some employees workers. Also many people talk's easily about everything and in some subjects, related in my job, I read really big mistakes. Internet is a good place to find out about many things but also a place were you can read may interested, lies, wrong information. You just to thinks twice anything you read, and also read it more than once.. And you never really know... http://www.reducirgastos.com/
http://www.reducirgastos.com
The article only talks about how reviews get rated after an initial rating, not about how subsequent reviews are good/bad if the initial review is good/bad. That would be the 'xxx people found this review helpful' - giving it a bunch of helpful ratings initially make more people likely to vote it helpful.
On a slightly related note, I wish Amazon would allow viewers to only view rating histograms of 'Amazon verified purchasers'. I remember when Amazon hadn't even released the Fire (except to Vine members - those who get the product early to review). There were lots of 1 star 'Sux, not worthy of sharing a table with my glorious iPad' reviews by people who hadn't even touched the product.
Anecdotal-ly, I found that if a review is rated high (in usefulness) on Amazon, it is generally quite good and detailed. That, and 2-4 star reviews generally have more details than one or five star reviews.
Drink the coolaid and get on board the Obama train. You can trust him more than Internet comments... Sure!!
can i at least trust the comments on slashdot? just asking
I can assure you that if I go somewhere based on positive reviews on Yelp or Urban Spoon, and the food sucks, I leave a very detailed, accurate review of exactly why the food sucked. Don't want some other poor soul to get stuck find out the same thing.
1. In Soviet Russia, all your first posts are belong to a beowulf cluster of insensitive clods pouring SCO brand grits down Natalie Portman's Cowboy Neil pants.
2. ????
3. Profit!
Troll illogical off topic failing ad hominem attacks that nigh constantly follow my hosts posts try to "put down" what I state in favor of hosts files (yet never disproving points I made validly)
OR
Statements I make regarding their benefits inr added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity (to a lesser extent here vs. dns request logs + getting around DNSBL's you may not like)?
APK
P.S.=> Anyone's FREE to attempt to disprove my points on custom hosts files validly (nobody ever does, especially said trolls) stated here @ my program's hosting site, enumerated there:
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
---
Short synopsis:
Custom hosts files give users of them great benefits in added speed (blocking adbanners & hardcoding your favorite sites into them - faster than remote DNS lookups), added security (vs. known malicious sites/serves/hosts-domains that serve up malware or are malscript bearing - blocking spam/phish malicious links also), added reliability (vs. Kaminsky bug vulnerable DNS servers, 99% of which are STILL unpatched vs. it & worst of all @ the ISP level + vulnerable as hell vs. FastFlux + Dynamic DNS using botnets), & even added "anonymity" to an extent (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's you may not like too)...
... apk
The comparison to Amazon/Yelp is misleading. They are confusing the rating of the comments (e.g. the "most helpful" positive/negative on Amazon) to the product rating. Upvoting a comment on Amazon does not change the product rating, and it doesn't on Yelp either. A comment does not become more trustworthy with upvotes - it just gets possibly seen more. If the researchers wanted to study Amazon ratings, they should have written fake positive reviews on Amazon products. Regarding the trustworthiness of comments, that's very hard to study - are you going to track down users and give them a lie detector test? It's almost like they realized their study was lame and tried to extrapolate it to a more exciting conclusion after-the-fact.
People can't change the truth but the truth can change people.
Casteism
Has been my motto.
Casteism
Can't change the truth? Whose truth, yours? Mine? Fox News fair and balanced truth? If the truth of history has always been written by the winners, one thing you can be certain of: it's not the whole truth.
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." --Oscar
Casteism
"Best you got" = WEAK illogical off-topic ad hominem attacks, nothing more.
Same as your crap here last time http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045075&cid=40972977
(Proof's in black & white, twice...)
---
I've also SEEN you're technically challenged in this art & science, ala your post on DOS being unable to multitask:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3801627&cid=43861407
Clue: DO YOU KNOW WHAT A "TSR" IS (terminate & stay resident program)?
New NEWS/NewsFlash: It's EXACTLY what proves you wrong there! Period.
I've written enough of them "back in the day" to KNOW that, hands-on... have you? No, obviously.
---
See? I can put a torch to what you spew easily. Funny YOU can't do the same to me.
Now, when I challenge you to disprove my points on hosts files stated here:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
You "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" or spew illogical trolling off topic b.s.!
(Yes - Your reply is all you have AS WELL AS THE ONE FROM THE PAST I posted (mere effete off-topic illogical trolling)).
Facts, are facts & truths, are truths. You provided them is all.
---
You also proved, on DOS above, that you CANNOT *THINK* for yourself & merely operate on myths others spread around the internet (which is WHY you're nothing more than an academia techie outta Illinois/St. Louis in computing).
Best part here is?
Yes - You CONCEDE gains from what my application has as its final output, a custom hosts file.
Try this crap again? I'll toss it back in your trolling face.
APK
P.S.=> "Get thee behind me, Satan" - that's about all I have to say to trolls such as yourself (you've been here for around 1 yr. to the DAY almost, and have YET to disprove my points on hosts files I state - heck, you can't even challenge 1: Makes sense, looking @ your level of "technical proficiency" in the art & science of computing)...
... apk
For security -> http://oreilly.com/pub/a/windows/2004/03/30/hosts.html & For speed -> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/excerpt/winxphacks_chap1/index1.html?page=3
"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now.
"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware.
BOTH of the latter quotes = SYMANTEC (SecurityFocus = subsidiary of theirs) http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
Agreeing with myself (& I'm one of the "old guys" that Mr. Day read from, want proof? Ask) - On gains in better:
1.) "Layered-Security"/"Defense-in-Depth"
2.) Speed
3.) Reliability
4.) Anonymity
* QUESTION: What have YOU done better to help improve conditions, Mr. "naysayer" troll?
Zero, right?
(IF you wish to continually expose yourself as nothing more than a defeating lying failing ad hominem attack using technically WEAK troll? Continue this... I'll GLADLY oblige you!).
APK
P.S.=>
"Not ad hominem at all. I didn't say that your methods didn't work, so it can't be ad hominem." - by omnichad (1198475) on Monday August 12, 2013 @03:02PM (#44544679) Homepage
No? What about your wisecracks stating I need meds (etc.) from you in your 1st post reply here?? Please - you're obviously NOT very intelligent being unable to remember that which you yourself, stated...
... apk
NO effort here whatsoever, to EASILY put you "in your place", with facts (& the findings of key noted others in the art & science of computing also who actually saw what I wrote, decades ago, & agreed + used it)
LMAO - I even NOW have you agreeing WITH my points in favor of hosts files listed here:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
Question #1: What EXACTLY is "complex ritual" from your post telling me to "take my meds" here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4072127&cid=44543183
(You're bringing this on YOURSELF... remember - YOU started it!)
Question #2: Are you a psychological professional that is licensed in the psychiatric sciences?
NO, you are not.
Question #3: Have you also:
1.) Performed an examination of my "alleged mental condition" in a professional psychiatric environs, according to YOU, "Dr. Quack - the 'SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk' of /." + your "snap/instant" prognosis?
2.) Are you licensed to do such accusations/prognosis??
If NOT to #2 (&you're not), that's libel buddy, especially combined with #1 above... watch yourself.
I can "play that game too": You sound like YOU have "delusions of grandeur" @ being a psychiatric PRO on YOUR part, actually (lol).
(You really ought to stop now, since I doubt you'll answer these questions... & IF you do? You'll do yourself in, for me... simple!)
APK
P.S.=> Yes, just what I thought (as to anything noteworthy from you in the eyes of others in publication, trade shows, commercial software to your name/credit from an MS partner, books, magazines, newspapers, & more? I have, many times, while you were in DIAPERS I'd wager... want a partial list? Ask!)... you're an "armchair quarterback", & a troll that makes libelous "prognosis" (or you're projecting your own issues, take your pick) when defeated by YOUR own inadequacy technically, & yes, in debate... apk
Why'd you avoid my questions? They're simple enough...
* However - I now strongly suspect YOU have had to be "diagnosed" though (what-with you "projecting" constantly here with your off-topic, illogical, FAILED ad hominem attacks...)
That, coupled with your rather OBVIOUS "delusions of grandeur" @ being a psychiatric pro on your part that is legally able to offer mental condition prognosis of others, (when you are not licensed to do so, period).
IF you're trying to make ME look good, & yourself, "not so good"? You're doing a GREAT job... thanks!
APK
P.S.=> Anyone reading with 1/2 a brain knows why you avoided 3 simple questions I asked of you, & 3++x times in a row
1.) http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4072127&cid=44525677
2.) http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4072127&cid=44543743
3.) http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4072127&cid=44545111
4.) http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4072127&cid=44545707
Bottom-line: YOU? Fail...
Just like you did YET ANOTHER TIME on hosts files (stupidly assuming on YOUR part it was about blocking hosts can do, when in fact, it was about their ability to AVOID redirect poisoning attacks -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3445509&cid=42832415 )
See subject, & troll -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4072127&cid=44546051
* Remember: YOU started this -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4072127&cid=44520759
Me? Hey - I am only finishing it, by letting YOU, finish yourself!
(Especially you avoid 3 simple questions here I asked of you, & the latter 2-3 I already KNOW you 'fall short' on regarding your libel of myself no less)
However, since you started this (With you "obsessing" over hosts files, that which YOU accuse ME of falsely -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4072127&cid=44520759 ?
The 1st question I asked was MOST important, so I will ask you again on it:
---
Question #1: What EXACTLY is "complex ritual" from your post telling me to "take my meds" here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4072127&cid=44543183
Question #2: Turn-about is fair play, & using reverse psychology - have YOU been diagnosed psychiatrically or psychologically?
---
You asked it of myself, I answered, see above!
(I wager you MAY have been, especially since you project that as an illogical off-topic ad hominem attack that failed repeatedly when directed MY way by yourself, troll!)
You proved, via evasions of my 3++ simple questions that you're not licensed to make prognosis, let alone diagnosis, of others' alleged mental condition, according to YOU "Dr. Quack - the 'SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk' of /.' who has no legal or psychological grounds to bolster YOUR own "delusions of grandeur" (lol), @ being an actual licensed practicing professional psychiatric pro on YOUR part.
APK
P.S.=> Dear trolls of /.: IF you're going to troll me? Send a peer in the art & science of computing, 1st of all, & secondly?? Send in someone with INTELLIGENCE beyond "10 below plantlife" like omnichad! Thanks...
... apk
How can I say that? Size of webpages reduced in streamed download & by up to that much by removing ads + hardcoding in your fav. sites (which my app places @ the top of a custom hosts file, & once in RAM cached, that exceeds dns index speed up to ~ 3 million entries).
---
A.) You also COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED the security gains hosts files yield in blocking:
1.) Spam/Phish mail links
2.) Maliciously scripted ads
3.) DNS servers malware makers use
4.) Botnet C&C Servers
5.) Known maliciously scripted sites
6.) Sites/Server that serve up malware too.
7.) Trackers
B.) You also overlooked RELIABILITY gains vs. dns-poisoned redirected DNS servers, or downed ones as well.
C.) You additionally overlooked 'anonymity' gains vs. dns request logs + being able to override DNSBL's you may not agree with!
---
& more... all listed in my app's download page here:
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
---
So much for your trolling...
APK
P.S.=> YOU FAIL!
... apk