So new members can only post 5 reviews a day then...

I think the point is that people do not search for reviews on items like mars bars, thus it does not bring people to the site.

I have honestly asked myself would I ever research a chocloate bar or a tin of tomatoes or a stick of chewing gum? The answer is no. However I would research a hotel, a washing machine, a laptop. And I think as a consumer I am fairly typical.

I have found that if you type the name of an item into google without searching for a review it does list dooyoo quite high up on some items. I don't know specifically about food items but the people who write those reviews do claim to have non-member reads. I personally would like to see food no longer reviewed on dooyoo but there must be a reason why dooyoo not only allow people to post food reviews but pay them for it and I can't think of any other reason except that non-members read them.

I think that there are some non members who check out dooyoo review from the new review list just as we members do. I don't believe anybody really seeks out these reviews as they might do for other products. I certianly don't believe anybody's review of tesco value tomatoes will be pulling in readers six months down the line.

Dooyoo has never differentiated between categories historically and have not got round to changing payment policy, but there was not this volume of food reviews before they introduced the 50p per review. IMO the people who consistently write about food items do not give a hoot about writing useful review, they are just milking a system which is open to milking.

I think the most valuable member that Dooyoo could get would post a couple of above average reviews per day on topics that have real value for Dooyoo, then do a lot of reading and rating and commenting (all to a high standard, of course) around the site, reporting abuse and anything that might be out of place on the site.

That would mean that the rewards being paid out are actually earned. In terms of some of the churners, even those that are guides, I really don't think they're giving value to the site or to the members.

I've always said that there's more to Dooyoo than posting reviews and miles and I stand by that.

I think it's quite shocking that some of the Guides have received more rates than they have given.....

Keep in mind that Guides are also 'normal' people and may have been active on the site for a long time before becoming guides. That deficit between rates may be established over a long period.

Yeah, I was a member for over five years before I started guiding, and my interest levels waxed and waned in that time. Also, it took me several months after joining to even figure out that rating was a good idea at all - I was reading but not rating for ages.

I reckon about a third of the rates I've given out came from my most recent stint as film guide (which I did for a year - one third of my rates have come from one eighth of my time as a member). As long as a guide is doing the job properly, there's no problem.

I agree, as long as a Guide is reading regularly in their own category currently that should be ok. As someone pointed out, the figures will be affected by what happened before they were appointed so the stats cannot be taken in isolation.

That's true, but I think it's reasonably easy to differentiate between those that have a "natural" reads deficit and those that are, to be perfectly blunt, churners. If guides are appointed as role models (I've no idea if they are, to be honest, but a lot of people expect them to be saints), then I'd prefer guides not to be churners.

Note: in my opinion there's a difference between churning and being prolific. A prolific writer will post lots, but also have at least a neutral read rate, whereas a churner just posts reviews.

This is NOT a dig at any particular members (although a number of recent events have prompted this) but is there not a case for suggesting that someone returning from a suspension should also have a 5 review per day limit for a period?

This would prevent them from swamping the site with all the reviews they have "stacked up" while serving their suspension.

I think that would be a good idea.

5-a-day - isn't that the Government guideline on fruit and veg? Maybe the rule should be you can't post more reviews than the number of portions of F&V you've consumed.

We'd still get lots of drivel but think what nice skin and hair the writers would all have.

koshkha wrote:

5-a-day - isn't that the Government guideline on fruit and veg? Maybe the rule should be you can't post more reviews than the number of portions of F&V you've consumed.

We'd still get lots of drivel but think what nice skin and hair the writers would all have.

I see your point about the rating...perhaps I was being a bit harsh!

carcraig wrote:

This is NOT a dig at any particular members (although a number of recent events have prompted this) but is there not a case for suggesting that someone returning from a suspension should also have a 5 review per day limit for a period?

This would prevent them from swamping the site with all the reviews they have "stacked up" while serving their suspension.

I like this, but perhaps the "restriction" could be tailored for each infraction or perpetrator?

Its an odd one. Their 50p per 150 word review was clearly to encourage churn yet this isn t. A contradiction.