Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Tommy

    The New Amazon Review Scam Tactic

    Wow! This was covered by the Washington Post last year - it's sad that it's still an industry that seems to be flourishing. These sites seem to be pretty blatant. I wonder if they are on Amazon's radar at this point...
  3. PoshM_Amazon

    The New Amazon Review Scam Tactic

    Hello! I loved your guys' post back in June of 2016 diving into the world of incentivized Amazon reviews. Well done and thank you! In case you guys were unaware, which I'm sure you've noticed, the new tactic for Amazon review scams now comes in the form of "rebates". Sellers list a product on a review site at full price so as to bypass Amazon's unverified review filter, the buyer purchases the product at full price on Amazon and later receives reimbursement through Paypal (or something like it) by the seller so it can't be tracked by Amazon. Some review/deal services will withhold reimbursement until the buyer has left a review. I really don't know what a good solution is for Amazon since the sellers are sorta clever to sell at full price and use a third party system to reimburse after the review is left so that Amazon will give it a verified review badge. Wanted to put on your radar so these scums could stop cheating the system! Some popular sites some of my girlfriends use is rebatekey and VIP Power Club on FB. I personally have seen this being used on some Facebook ads myself. Is there any hope for a review system you can truly trust on Amazon 😞
  4. Last week
  5. Earlier
  6. I've done a little bit of consulting work helping write reports for sellers who suspect that their competitors are trying to attack them. The problem is that it's always difficult to "prove" that a review is fake, and then also getting Amazon to respond or take any action is never guaranteed. Then the other thing I've seen is that some brand owners (not saying that you're doing this) will claim that every negative review about their business or product is fake. Sometimes people believe in their products so much that they can't believe someone wouldn't like it. Last, I've seen brand owners actually start to get a bunch of negative reviews because a competing seller slipped in and started offering a knock-off product under the same listing for a lower price.
  7. We've seen an influx of fraudulent review activity on our own products by our competitors. Has anyone used ReviewMeta to filter through and identify fraudulent reviews on their own products?
  8. Hello Guyr8s- Thanks for writing in. As I mentioned on the "Donate" page (https://reviewmeta.com/donate) I previously had Paypal open for donations, and even started setting up a Pateron account, however part of me never really felt right taking my visitor's money. I know that a lot of successful online businesses run entirely on donations (e.g. Wikipedia) but for some reason, I just feel uncomfortable when people are generous with me when I think there's other people or organizations that need it more. That said, here's a few things to keep in mind: If you want to hide ads, anyone can click the big button at the bottom of the page here: https://reviewmeta.com/donate (If it's not working, just let me know and I'll fix it. The button broke once, so I wouldn't be surprised if it breaks again). Don't feel bad about clicking the button - it's like a fraction of a fraction of a cent of ad revenue. If you want to help the site improve, share your ideas and feedback here on the forum. I'm happy to discuss features and upgrades here (also, trying to spark some discussion here on the forum). A lot of the features added to the site in the last year have started as suggestions from visitors like yourself!
  9. It would behoove you and make it easier for folks like me, to arrange acceptance of PayPal donations OR setup with Patreon.com for ongoing and continuous supporters. The limit to using credit cards only is a deal-breaker for me. Another issue that might help gifting would be a simple mathematical focus to your monetary challenge. Something like this: "If the users of our site could contribute $0.03 each time they use it it would cover our expenses." "If our users could see their way clear to donate $1.24 a month or say, $15.00 a year, we could eliminate ads, speed up the site, and improve my sleep patterns!" I am making up the numbers but you likely already know what that data is quite well. I use and appreciate what you offer. If we knew the impact our single contribution meant, it would make helping your service much more personal and rewarding. Thank you!
  10. Tommy

    RFE: Filtering Category Pages

    There's been some caching implemented - the category pages take a lot of server resources, so we store a page for a few hours after it has been generated to reduce server load.
  11. TPS

    RFE: Filtering Category Pages

    @cast Actually, they used to update in realtime until recently.… @Tommy what changed?
  12. cast

    RFE: Filtering Category Pages

    After updating the product reviews, the associated category page does not update. It would be nice to have this automatically update
  13. Tommy

    RFE: Filtering Category Pages

    Thanks for the suggestion! Yes, I see how the category pages can be greatly improved with the simple addition of a few filters. To be honest, I'm not in love with the category pages and want to do a complete overhaul in the coming months. Any more input on using the category pages will help give me ideas on how to re-design them. As for the moderation, I've still got to mess with the settings. I thought that only posts in the "Brand Response" forum would need to go through moderation, not the "Everything Else" forum as well. Edit: Looks like it's automatically going through moderation because it contains a link! I suppose I'll turn that off because most posts will contain links as a reference to stuff on the site.
  14. If you check category pages (e.g., https://reviewmeta.com/category/amazon/3732981), you'll notice that they're often overrun w/ products that have very few reviews. Why not give us an option to filter (the sorting is fine) these pages to, e.g., remove items that have less than a user-configurable # of RM-accepted reviews, or a Failed RM rating? That'd help significantly in so many categories! P.S.: "Thanks for submitting your response. Your submission will soon be moderated. If your response is approved, we will post a link to your response on your brand page and product pages on ReviewMeta.com. PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT ANOTHER OFFICIAL RESPONSE, IT MAY BE DELETED." isn't correct for every post. 😉
  15. Is the selector you're referring to on Amazon the where you pick the "Size" (Queen/King/Full/etc) and then "Style" (8-inch/10-inch/etc)? It would be nice to have that in theory, but unfortunately we haven't been collecting that data necessary for that and it would be a pretty substantial effort to start collecting it. If Amazon had some sort of data-share agreement with us, then it would be easier to implement things like this, but unfortunately there is no such agreement in place, so it's hard to mimic the Amazon display on a lot of aspects. That said, I see your point on only being able to go off the titles, so I'll have to think about how we can use the existing data to be displayed in a better format.
  16. I very much appreciate RM efforts toward variations , but the variation listing UI in RM fails pretty hard com compared to that of the Amazon original UI. Is it possible to make it more like the original? A couple of ideas: 1) Use a selector in the variation popup as identical as possible to Amazon's own 2) Make is possible to rejigger RM so it (configurably) weights 1 variation's reviews above all others'. 2a) Make this iterative in cases when there's more than 1 dimension of variation. 2b) Bonus if https://reviewmeta.com/forum/index.php?/topic/13-rfe-positive-critical-review-trust/ could be realigned toward this in these cases. Example: I'm researching https://reviewmeta.com/amazon/B00Q7EPSHI . It generally gets great reviews, but I suspect the specific variation I'd want to purchase (queen, 6") may have issues more often than not. I try to find this variation on RM, but am thwarted by its reliance on the listing title, than variation description. Oh, how I wish to simply choose [Queen] [6-inch] someplace, & be whisked off to the RM page where the critical reviews clearly note that (e.g.) it's the 6-inch sizing that's the problem more than the queen, for whatever reason. I thank RM & go back to considering the 8-inch, which RMs happily.
  17. It would excellent to show the absolute/relative trust of the most trusted positive/critical review, also, so we could choose to which to give more weight, ourselves — e.g., a most-trusted critical score of 100% I'd give more credence than a most-trusted positive score of 75%.
  18. Ah, I see, so instead of Most Trusted and Least Trusted, (or in addition to), show the "Most Trusted Critical Reviews". Definitely see how this could be a useful feature. Adding it to the list! Thanks for the suggestion!
  19. On most of Amazon review pages, it has the option to sort out the most "helpful" positive & critical reviews, & I actually find those negatives more useful. I propose RM do the same for most trusted reviews - highlight among those the cheerleaders & naysayers. What do you think?
  20. Tommy

    May I refer to your site and reports in a blog?

    Hey Mark- Thanks for asking! You can use any of the info on the reports, but please don't add words that aren't there, such as "ReviewMeta Certified", "ReviewMeta Verified", or "Guaranteed Fake Review free" or anything of that nature that's not available on the report pages.
  21. So my reviews come up as excellent, my competitors; a FAIL. I'd like to promote this in a blog post that refers to the data in your reports. What do I need to do to respect your intellectual property? Thank you! Mark
  22. brec

    That other reviews scoring site

    Thanks for the research. Transparency is good for trust!
  23. Tommy

    That other reviews scoring site

    Interesting comparison here. Let's take a deeper look... Before we begin, it's important to keep in mind that both sites are estimates, and since I didn't create FakeSpot, anything I say about their analysis is just my guess - I don't know more about the inner workings of their site than any other visitor. (1) SKG Automatic Bread Machine 2LBhttps://www.amazon.com/dp/B071GKYPQ3Amazon: 363 reviews, 4.4 stars, rank 74%ReviewMeta: Fail, 157 reviews, 4.3 stars, rank 63%FakeSpot: Grade D, Adjusted rating 2.0 stars, 49% low quality reviews. For the ReviewMeta report, I'm pretty confident in it after taking a manual look. Looks like there was some suspicious activity which was detected and some of the reviews were de-valued. A product rating reduction of 4.4 => 4.3 isn't nothing, but it seems that the product has been able to generate a decent amount of trustworthy honest reviews over time (which seems to be quite common). Looking at the FS report, if I click on the "Trustwerty adjusted rating" it takes me to Trustwerty.com and shows that it's 2.3 stars. (It also prompts me to pay $10 to see the full report, which I'm not doing). FS also says "44.0% Low Quality Reviews Detected". If there's 363 reviews, that means they're estimating 160 Low Quality Reviews. Assuming every single one of these is a 5-star review, let's look how the review picture changes when we throw them out. 5-star: 293 => 133 4-star: 27 3-star: 11 2-star: 12 1-star: 20 Even if we throw out 160 5-star reviews, the average rating would only drop to 4.2/5. So something isn't quite adding up here. Even if you threw out every single one of the 293 5-star reviews, the average rating would only drop to a 2.6. And that's over 80% of the reviews! I strongly believe that you can't do anything beyond simply devaluing some reviews. The technology looks at reviews and has absolutely no way of knowing anything about the products themselves, so trying to further "punish" a product is a bit of an overstep in my opinion. The bottomline is this: It's unclear how FS is calculating their "trustwerty rating", but it's clear that they aren't using the same methodology that we are here at ReviewMeta. (2) Zojirushi BB-PAC20BA BB-PAC20 Home Bakery Virtuoso Breadmaker with Gluten Free Menu setting (Two selectable variations on the same product page)https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0067MQM48Amazon: 1,776 reviews, 4.5 stars, rank 77%ReviewMeta: Pass, 1,520 reviews, 4.5 stars, rank 82%FakeSpot: Grade D, Adjusted rating approx. 2.4 [approx. because by eye from filled-in stars], 44% low quality reviews. This is an example where FS doesn't like the reviews and RM does. What's tough about this is that RM shows all the work while FS doesn't, so it's hard to see exactly FS has decided to give it the rating that it does. Looking at the RM report, I don't see any major red flags, and since I didn't create FS, I can't say why they found issue with the reviews.
  24. brec

    That other reviews scoring site

    OK! Here are the two products, one in the lower-price range and one in the higher-price range: (1) SKG Automatic Bread Machine 2LB https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071GKYPQ3 Amazon: 363 reviews, 4.4 stars, rank 74% ReviewMeta: Fail, 157 reviews, 4.3 stars, rank 63% FakeSpot: Grade D, Adjusted rating 2.0 stars, 49% low quality reviews. ReviewMeta and FakeSpot seem more or less aligned on these reviews except for the adjusted rating. I actually ordered this on Tuesday, couple of days ago, before I discovered ReviewMeta (and remembered FakeSpot) and am awaiting delivery. I have to decide whether to keep it or to order my alternative, #2 below. On one hand, Review Meta gives the reviews a Fail; on the other hand, the adjusted rating, 4.3, is still very good. There aren't many if any original ratings in any price range with triple-digit number of reviews that average higher than about 4.5. Oh, and compare this one: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B06XBYYYBL --Exact same model available only from 3rd party sellers at more than twice the price (Amazon is such a bizarre bazaar). 130 reviewers, A grade from FakeSpot. (2) Zojirushi BB-PAC20BA BB-PAC20 Home Bakery Virtuoso Breadmaker with Gluten Free Menu setting (Two selectable variations on the same product page) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0067MQM48 Amazon: 1,776 reviews, 4.5 stars, rank 77% ReviewMeta: Pass, 1,520 reviews, 4.5 stars, rank 82% FakeSpot: Grade D, Adjusted rating approx. 2.4 [approx. because by eye from filled-in stars], 44% low quality reviews. Independent evidence gives me confidence in this manufacturer and this particular item's quality. The FakeSpot report seems anomalous because almost all of Zojirushi's other bread machines' reviews get A or B grades from them. Why would just one model in a manufacturer's line garner unreliable reviews? Your fellow Nevadan, brec
  25. Tommy

    That other reviews scoring site

    Hey Brec- Welcome to the forum! Yes, this is something I'm definitely interested in discussing. Would love to see your examples. One thing I noticed about the adjusted rating between RM and FS is that RM is ONLY using the existing reviews to recalculate an adjusted rating. So, for example, if a product has ONLY 100 5-star reviews and that's it, it will either get an adjusted rating of 5 stars OR an "insufficient reviews". We're not going to make up lower-star reviews. I've seen products on FS get an adjusted rating of 2 stars when there isn't a single review below 3 stars on that product. They are definitely using a different methodology, and it's not clear what it is.
  26. Tommy, I was struck by the differences in adjusted reviews summary ratings (stars) for a couple of competitive products I'm currently evaluating between ReviewMeta and FakeSpot. If this is a subject you might want to discuss here, let me know and I'll provide more detail. If not, I'll understand completely. brec
  27. Thank you for refreshing or re-running our assessment. I didn't realize the initial evaluation was over a year old. It makes sense now that the initial customer feedback may have come in right after the initial product launch. I also didn't realize I could request a refresh on my own so it's great that we can do that. Thank you for taking these steps on my behalf as the system now correctly reflects the current state, that our flagship SmithShaper® Ab & Squat Roller Multi-purpose Exerciser product has a passing mark in this area. This confirms my understanding and validates that SmithShaper customer feedback is indeed legitimate. I can now see how robust the reviewmeta.com site is and appreciate the valuable service you are providing consumers and businesses alike. I sure hope people take a close look here prior to making purchases of any product to see what's real and what's not. Best wishes to you! Louis SmithShaper LLC
  28. Hello Louis- Thanks for being the first to take a shot at the response dashboard. I went ahead and removed the marketing images from the bottom of your post as to comply with our rules. I'm assuming your product is this one? https://reviewmeta.com/amazon/B01G8FK7V2 The first thing I noticed is that the report was over a year old. I clicked the "Update" button (this is available to any visitor, not just me) and it refreshed the report and shows a PASS now. One thing that I find interesting is that there are 10 unverified reviews, all of which are perfect 5/5 star reviews, while the verified reviews average 4.3 stars. There's also three one hit wonder + unverified reviews from the following reviewers: https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AELNM3YLIV6M7FA2OBP5Y3ZPHNWA?pldnSite=1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AGVQJFAHDN4BAQH5AML77NWYZI2Q?pldnSite=1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AEWNP7HHNZKNLZKCCZ427WMIHREA?pldnSite=1 All three of these users posted their only review (5-star unverified purchase review for your product) around the same time. Jun-18, Jun-20 and Jul-30 of 2016. This is what could have been causing the initial WARN but now that there's additional reviews, it could have been bumped up to a PASS. Again, I appreciate you going out on a leg and being the first to post a public response.
  1. Load more activity
×

Important Information

Welcome to the ReviewMeta Forums! By viewing our site, you agree to our Terms of Use