Strange behavior of the What*Hifi review system

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

Interesting thing I faced recently. I posted some reviews in the review section and the positive ones where published. The critical one with not so astonishing notes wheren't.

At first I believed it could be deliberate. Now I'm puzzled. Are they a lot of you that had those kind of experience ?

 

[matt49]

If true, that's troubling.

Can you provide any solid evidence, or is this just audiophile paranoia?

 

[chebby]

Interesting news. I discovered, that what-hifi manipulated the review section of this portal in not publishing negative, or simply critic reviews on a product. So you could only post overly positive reviews or they wouldn't be published.

If you mean user reviews, then I have (randomly) just found an exception where two 1 star reviews were published ...

http://www.whathifi.com/sonos/play1/user-reviews

Can you clarify exactly what you mean please? Is it a specific product or a general thing? Also where did you 'discover' the information to back the allegation?

 

[The_Lhc]

Interesting news. I discovered, that what-hifi manipulated the review section of this portal in not publishing negative, or simply critic reviews on a product. So you could only post overly positive reviews or they wouldn't be published.

There you go, being all helpful to people again...

 

[spiny norman]

Interesting news. I discovered, that what-hifi manipulated the review section of this portal in not publishing negative, or simply critic reviews on a product. So you could only post overly positive reviews or they wouldn't be published.

Are you sure it's not just that user reviews are moderated ahead of publication, and the moderation is about as attentive as it is on this forum when, for example, you report a spamming or abusive post?

In other words, are you sure you're not seeing conspiracy when on past evidence it's more likely ****-up?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

How do you respond to this politely?

If unhappy or uncomfortable with the mags ethics.... er....find another forum.

 

[steve_1979]

Interesting news. I discovered, that what-hifi manipulated the review section of this portal in not publishing negative, or simply critic reviews on a product. So you could only post overly positive reviews or they wouldn't be published.

Evidence?

 

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

"Evidences"

I published 4 reviews in the last days. The positive reviews where putted online. The critical ones (not negative) where not published.

 

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

Interesting news. I discovered, that what-hifi manipulated the review section of this portal in not publishing negative, or simply critic reviews on a product. So you could only post overly positive reviews or they wouldn't be published.

There you go, being all helpful to people again...

So much hate and frustration in your comments lately. Looks like your life is not going well. Hope you will feel better in a few weeks.

 

[drummerman]

To the OP; Perhaps you can repeat those critical reviews/opinions in this thread so that WH can respond to your complaint.

 

[chebby]

I've looked for more examples of 'critical' user reviews to demonstrate that they can be posted (even if contrary to a positive WHF? review).

Here is another ...

http://www.whathifi.com/ruark-audio/mr1/user-reviews#BVRRContainer

 

[chebby]

Interesting news. I discovered, that what-hifi manipulated the review section of this portal in not publishing negative, or simply critic reviews on a product. So you could only post overly positive reviews or they wouldn't be published.

Are you sure it's not just that user reviews are moderated ahead of publication, and the moderation is about as attentive as it is on this forum when, for example, you report a spamming or abusive post?

In other words, are you sure you're not seeing conspiracy when on past evidence it's more likely ****-up?

There were problems around Christmas/New year time when people complained they couldn't review a chosen product - to enter the competition - because it hadn't been put on the database yet ...

http://www.whathifi.com/news/user-review-competition-ps3000-award-winning-products-grabs

If you read the whole thread you'll see that some products don't go onto the database straight away or people have to wait for a third party company to 'moderate' the entries as Spiny suggests.

Spiny's suggestion that ****-up is more likely than conspiracy is consistent with all the other site problems. I don't think the site software is good enough for a fraudulent review policy to work properly.

Anyway, who would gain from you not being able to post a critical review? (I've shown others could post critical reviews.)

 

[Frank Harvey]

So much hate and frustration in your comments lately. Looks like your life is not going well. Hope you will feel better in a few weeks.

It's not hate - The_Lhc just has an intolerance...

 

[The_Lhc]

So much hate and frustration in your comments lately. Looks like your life is not going well. Hope you will feel better in a few weeks.

It's not hate - The_Lhc just has an intolerance...

Yes but only dairy.

And nuts. Conspiracy nuts that is...

 

[The_Lhc]

Interesting news. I discovered, that what-hifi manipulated the review section of this portal in not publishing negative, or simply critic reviews on a product. So you could only post overly positive reviews or they wouldn't be published.

There you go, being all helpful to people again...

So much hate and frustration in your comments lately. Looks like your life is not going well. Hope you will feel better in a few weeks.

No, everything is going swimmingly in fact.

Either way, it's not hate, it's boredom, there's nothing more boring online than ridiculous conspiracy theories and that's all I ever see from you, your claim to have made hundreds of posts helping people doesn't seem to stand up, I can't find any evidence to support that, although I haven't exactly gone looking for it, it's just a general impression from reading your input from the last few years.

 

[spiny norman]

your claim to made hundreds of posts helping people doesn't seem to stand up

Not least because he/she has only made a total of 177 posts.

 

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

There you go, being all helpful to people again...

So much hate and frustration in your comments lately. Looks like your life is not going well. Hope you will feel better in a few weeks.

No, everything is going swimmingly in fact.

Either way, it's not hate, it's boredom, there's nothing more boring online than ridiculous conspiracy theories and that's all I ever see from you, your claim to have made hundreds of posts helping people doesn't seem to stand up, I can't find any evidence to support that, although I haven't exactly gone looking for it, it's just a general impression from reading your input from the last few years.

You have lots of "impressions", "beliefs" and other kind of things. It's nice, but I simply don't care. Sorry. You can find numerous posts where I help peoples out and share my experience with them. The fact that you are bored by that is something I could not change (and I ask myself what you are reading of me). It' not the first time I encounter some unpleasant post from you. But, as said before, I can't help you on this matter.

Coming back to the case. I'm puzzled now since the last published posts of some of you. It seems that some critical feedbacks are passing and some other aren't (even if they respect the policy of the site). I will edit the title and the first post due to those new elements.

 

[Al ears]

There you go, being all helpful to people again...

So much hate and frustration in your comments lately. Looks like your life is not going well. Hope you will feel better in a few weeks.

No, everything is going swimmingly in fact.

Either way, it's not hate, it's boredom, there's nothing more boring online than ridiculous conspiracy theories and that's all I ever see from you, your claim to have made hundreds of posts helping people doesn't seem to stand up, I can't find any evidence to support that, although I haven't exactly gone looking for it, it's just a general impression from reading your input from the last few years.

You have lots of "impressions", "beliefs" and other kind of things. It's nice, but I simply don't care. Sorry. You can find numerous posts where I help peoples out and share my experience with them. The fact that you are bored by that is something I could not change (and I ask myself what you are reading of me). It' not the first time I encounter some unpleasant post from you. But, as said before, I can't help you on this matter.

Coming back to the case. I'm puzzled now since the last published posts of some of you. It seems that some critical feedbacks are passing and some other aren't (even if they respect the policy of the site). I will edit the title and the first post due to those new elements.

Now that makes about as much sense as my daughter at times.

 

[hg_mike]

NSA,

There is no WHF conspiracy. The non-appearance of user reviews has already been explained several times - see #9

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/about-site/user-reviews-0

 

[spiny norman]

Coming back to the case. I'm puzzled now since the last published posts of some of you. It seems that some critical feedbacks are passing and some other aren't (even if they respect the policy of the site). I will edit the title and the first post due to those new elements.

Would you like a hand movie those goalposts, even if moving plans was isn't due to the discover by Lemmurium?

 

[hg_mike]

Coming back to the case. I'm puzzled now since the last published posts of some of you. It seems that some critical feedbacks are passing and some other aren't (even if they respect the policy of the site). I will edit the title and the first post due to those new elements.

Would you like a hand movie those goalposts, even if moving plans was isn't due to the discover by Lemmurium?

That is educational. I now understand the origin of the mammal lemurs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuria_(continent)