Maybe it's just me, but I don't know why first time posters, posting a review are so encouraged/welcomed on here, anyone could write a post like the one above, there is enough information in 20+ positive reviews, you know nothing else about the poster, but it's all ok because he's posted a "review"
Reviews are encouraged from all simply because they are usually the most helpful thing you can post on here (especially for actual punters). You are right that anyone could write what he did but it would probably take a more effort to read her reviews and come up with your own that doesn't seem like an exact copy than it would to just recall a punt you've had. Given he's been a member for a year, I doubt he's had no punts in that time and it's not too surprising he's chosen this girl (given her numerous reviews on here) so I'm very much inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
We know next to nothing about any poster not just him. Well done, you've correctly identified one of the limitations of every anonymous punting forum.
I personally don't want him to waffle on about stuff that is only vaguely helpful to punters (and he could still be posting crap anyway) so I'd much rather him get stuck in with a helpful review (like he pretty much has done - it's just the comment will be seen by a few less punters and it won't make Harriet's review tally more "reliable/accurate" as a review would).
We can never be sure about any punter and the more they post, the more the bad eggs are likely to trip themselves up but you seem to be overestimating the unreliability of punters on this site (you'd know that if you actually bothered to punt). As far as my own experiences go, I am of course cautious about trusting new reviewers but in my experience I've not had any more issues with them than I've had in general/with others (it probably helps that I'm cautious though). By that I purely mean all the issues that go along with with the WG changing over time, reviews and experiences being subjective etc.
Taking this WG (Harriet) as an example, her first reviewer only had 3 previous reviews (all positive) and his review (plus other actions) came across as rather fluffy. However I still decided to see her and I had a good time (as per my review, her 2nd). I should point out that when I started this example I originally thought her first review was from a first time reviewer however clearly it's not so of course this example isn't very good.
That is one of the issues with this site. People like that making comments about people's reviews. Why shouldn't people feel welcomed and encouraged to contribute? Maybe if the site wasn't full of people like you there would be a lot more people posting etc.
Generally I think scepticism is very healthy and it's helpful to see how the poster reacts etc. Even when the scepticism is shown to be unfounded, it's healthy that the process was undertaken. However, I actually pretty much agree with your post in this instance because cerealputer's scepticism is taking it to the extreme. While people shouldn't be automatically 100% believed, they should also be given a chance. I
usually prefer the "give them rope to hang themselves with" approach rather than jumping down their throats and potentially stifling any further contributions. It's a balance though and I (plus others) do seem to do the latter but only when things clearly need challenging straight away. No one gets it right all the time but this forum gets it right pretty much as best as it can (although I'm not saying improvements can't be made as they definitely can).
Where am I protesting about reviews, but that "review" could have been written by anyone who's read the other positive reviews.
The same applies to any review from anyone of any girl who's had a previous review (particularly multiple previous reviews). You haven't even punted recently so I don't understand why you're so cynical. What's your experience been of reviews on this site (particularly compared to AW and other forums)? Mine has definitely been mostly positive, particularly compared to any other source of info.
Some on here are very blinkered to the whole review thing, the constant, where is your review/why haven't you reviewed etc etc probably put's more members off posting anything on the site, they then become "lurkers" then along comes a rule change and they all start posting something to retain access, as can be seen by the amount of posts of a few words over the last few days.
Not at all, I punt a lot and I find full reviews to be very helpful. Regardless, you've just heard from a relative lurker who has stated that it's not being told to posts reviews, it's the scepticism and in your case cynicism when they do post one (they see it happen to others).
If anyone is put off by being told to post reviews, then the fact that they feel unable to do so means they're either undesirable or pretty much useless to this site. If they won't post reviews, I could not give less of a fuck if they don't post anything.
Even if this forum wasn't at all sceptical or cynical and was extremely welcoming and friendly, there would only be a few more posts/reviews (and I'm sure a higher proportion would be the kind we don't want). For example, see the 1% rule, which admin has talked about in the past:
External Link/Members Only)
It's a bit like the "elite courtesan" crap just because someone's posted reviews doesn't make them "special"
No one has said it makes them "special" but it does make them a lot more helpful. I doubt you've helped me even once with any of your posts however I know for a fact that, pretty much all of the people who've commented in this thread who have more than 4 reviews have helped me very directly due to some of their reviews.
but as can be seen by the amount who were freezing accounts at the weekend, it certainly does go to their heads.
I hope you're not confusing the actions of a minority with the majority. It was a minority of helpers who did the majority of freezes. I did a few myself though, a couple were definitely very justified (as per admin's guidance) but a couple were borderline so if anyone (particularly admin) has any advice/comments then I'm all ears. I think the worst I thing I saw was when helpers would have a proper go at punters who posted something helpful or at least tried to post a helpful review etc. You did similar (in a slightly different way) by heaping such doubt upon dysonj's post.
I wonder how many of the 2 million plus posts are "Where's your review"
Shouldn't really be sidetracking this thread.
So what? It doesn't take long to read. However that is one of the main reasons I asked him to post his own review, so punters wouldn't have to read through the subsequent comments to find it (and of course some won't bother so a review would be new info to them - or rather from a new person's perspective, which is all you can ask for at this stage).
My comment was a relatively rare one, the vast majority of "where's your review" comments also have the explicit or at least implied stipulation that more info/detail is needed. Most punters don't find the typical one-two line positive comment to be very helpful, as such telling them to put up a full review is definitely necessary.
It's a punting forum, reviews are part of it, but not the be all and end all.
No one has said they're the only thing that matter but they are by the far the most important thing. As a non-punter you clearly don't understand.
But how many first time posters reviews can actually be trusted.
They have to start somewhere. No one has suggested they can all be totally trusted, which is why I said:
Reviews also increase your trustworthiness over time.
It would be easy to gather information from other reviews and post that.
True but they can also just post what they can remember from their own experiences - which would be quicker and easier. Unlike you, most people on here do actually punt (especially once they've been a member for more than a few months). I'm not saying to totally trust him but there's nothing wrong with taking his word for now, the acid test will come when he starts posting about those with no/few reviews.
what's wrong with coming on the forum, joining in asking for some advice and moving on from there, but no the are "leeches" if they continue to ask for advice etc, well that's a different story.
You're wrong. Most people who come on the forum and ask for
advice do get some advice. Most people who ask for
recommendations and demonstrate that they're too lazy to even do a search on AW, never mind here, don't get much help in the form of recommendations but often they do get advice (even if it's just implied). Many of them are too thick to realise that they're not being specific enough about what they're looking for anyway - cueball highlights that to great effect because he literally gives them what they ask for.
I can't count the number of times I've directly helped lazy leeches (or seen others do so) and they've still not bothered to contribute anything in return at a later date. Why should anyone go out of their way to help when it's so incredibly rare for them to help in return (in the future). Besides, there's already plenty of help on here in the form of the many reviews. If they're too lazy to use the search box then that's their problem.
Of course there are limitations of an anonymous internet forum but you're not a genius for figuring them out. This is still 1000% by far the best forum and source of WG reviews/"feedback" out there and it succeeds precisely because of the way it is, as VW and admin have suggested.
Topic: Harriett Appleby - Salford (Read 2939 times)
