Product Descriptions
I think the description program enriches the buying process. I've shopped with EF since March of 2007. When I first started shopping here, the manufacturer's description or a quick write up by some PR pro made me think all these toys were fantastic, safe, and clean. As Bulma stated, some toys not safe for anal play were actually recommended for anal. Some toys even came with talc and there was never any mention in the description of the toy or otherwise that talc wasn't all that safe to use.
There are fantastic reviewers involved within the description program. Yes, I've seen some description reviews that told me absolutely NOTHING about the toy- to those reviews I wrote up like 10 different questions in a comment, trying to purge the info out of them so people considering buying that toy would have all the information possible to make a decision. There are flaws, I know personally, I've included a lot of personal opinion (yes, within the guidelines it states to have an opinion.. but I know that I've gone above and beyond). I actually saw this thread and submitted a description review with more generality because of it. That review, link
contains 303 words, not counting the experience section. That's 490+ words short of my other reviews. As I made sure not to put too personal opinions in there I ended up not being very descriptive about the clamps at all. I feel like I sacrificed a little of my writing style to appease the people that want just the basics sans "fluff". The majority of my reviews are full of colorful visuals, loaded with adjectives, and full of metaphors- the clamp review is not but I hope it's more of what you want Carrie Ann.
There are fantastic reviewers involved within the description program. Yes, I've seen some description reviews that told me absolutely NOTHING about the toy- to those reviews I wrote up like 10 different questions in a comment, trying to purge the info out of them so people considering buying that toy would have all the information possible to make a decision. There are flaws, I know personally, I've included a lot of personal opinion (yes, within the guidelines it states to have an opinion.. but I know that I've gone above and beyond). I actually saw this thread and submitted a description review with more generality because of it. That review, link
contains 303 words, not counting the experience section. That's 490+ words short of my other reviews. As I made sure not to put too personal opinions in there I ended up not being very descriptive about the clamps at all. I feel like I sacrificed a little of my writing style to appease the people that want just the basics sans "fluff". The majority of my reviews are full of colorful visuals, loaded with adjectives, and full of metaphors- the clamp review is not but I hope it's more of what you want Carrie Ann.
01/09/2009
Quote:
I actually never said a thing about the reviews themselves.
Originally posted by
Sleeping Dreamer
I think the description program enriches the buying process. I've shopped with EF since March of 2007. When I first started shopping here, the manufacturer's description or a quick write up by some PR pro made me think all these toys were fantastic,
...
I think the description program enriches the buying process. I've shopped with EF since March of 2007. When I first started shopping here, the manufacturer's description or a quick write up by some PR pro made me think all these toys were fantastic, safe, and clean. As Bulma stated, some toys not safe for anal play were actually recommended for anal. Some toys even came with talc and there was never any mention in the description of the toy or otherwise that talc wasn't all that safe to use.
There are fantastic reviewers involved within the description program. Yes, I've seen some description reviews that told me absolutely NOTHING about the toy- to those reviews I wrote up like 10 different questions in a comment, trying to purge the info out of them so people considering buying that toy would have all the information possible to make a decision. There are flaws, I know personally, I've included a lot of personal opinion (yes, within the guidelines it states to have an opinion.. but I know that I've gone above and beyond). I actually saw this thread and submitted a description review with more generality because of it. That review, link
contains 303 words, not counting the experience section. That's 490+ words short of my other reviews. As I made sure not to put too personal opinions in there I ended up not being very descriptive about the clamps at all. I feel like I sacrificed a little of my writing style to appease the people that want just the basics sans "fluff". The majority of my reviews are full of colorful visuals, loaded with adjectives, and full of metaphors- the clamp review is not but I hope it's more of what you want Carrie Ann.
There are fantastic reviewers involved within the description program. Yes, I've seen some description reviews that told me absolutely NOTHING about the toy- to those reviews I wrote up like 10 different questions in a comment, trying to purge the info out of them so people considering buying that toy would have all the information possible to make a decision. There are flaws, I know personally, I've included a lot of personal opinion (yes, within the guidelines it states to have an opinion.. but I know that I've gone above and beyond). I actually saw this thread and submitted a description review with more generality because of it. That review, link
contains 303 words, not counting the experience section. That's 490+ words short of my other reviews. As I made sure not to put too personal opinions in there I ended up not being very descriptive about the clamps at all. I feel like I sacrificed a little of my writing style to appease the people that want just the basics sans "fluff". The majority of my reviews are full of colorful visuals, loaded with adjectives, and full of metaphors- the clamp review is not but I hope it's more of what you want Carrie Ann.
Reread.
My issue is with the small summary part that is taking the place of the old product descriptions.
I love almost all the reviews I read. I just don't want to HAVE to go and read the review to have a basic idea of what the toy does. I think that should be in the summary part on Product Description reviews.
Pros, Cons and a Summary of the toy, not an Opinion on the toy. The opinion is easily found in the review text.
Thanks for your post, Sleeping Dreamer. It's made me understand that my point has been misunderstood.
To clarify;
Reviews are great! Opinion is great! Lots of words are great!
In the review.
In the summary I'd, personally, like to see less opinion and more concise product description since that summary is taking the PLACE of a product description.
Perhaps using the same "summary" format we use for all reviews is the problem and it should be a "description" rather than a summary.
Does that make more sense? Is it less offensive?
Sheesh. I really didn't mean to get so many of you who are doing the reviews for product description all atwitter.
I mean, it IS a new program and it's only going to improve if people point out what they find difficult about it.
01/09/2009
Quote:
You have been put in an impossible position here. I took a look at the review- not to point fingers, but to recognize the inconsistencies in being to asked to write a REVIEW that serves two purposes.
Originally posted by
Backseat Boohoo
I was the one who wrote that. I tried to be as objective as possible when describing the appearance of the toy, but when you get down to it, it's really hard to be completely objective without a little of the subjective in it. I honestly thought the
...
I was the one who wrote that. I tried to be as objective as possible when describing the appearance of the toy, but when you get down to it, it's really hard to be completely objective without a little of the subjective in it. I honestly thought the toy was tacky (among other things) and therefore not worth the money, so that's why I wrote the review that way. =/ I'm sorry it bothered you so much, and I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.
1. An accurate review of a product.
2. A product description.
I personally feel that the "Descriptions" program should require an ADDITIONAL write up to be posted as a product description, and one that is purely objective. Material made out of "x", properties, intendend purpose or use, etc.
Backseat Boohoo should be able to write TACKY in any dang review she wants especially for a lousy product. But Eden needs a better way for the Descriptions program.
This is just a hack job on the part of Eden. (I didn't fully understand how it worked until I looked at this more.)
01/09/2009
I agree with DBD in the sense that a description and a review are totally different things. If you want a description to be objective, then it cannot logically also be a review. I personally think having descriptions that aren't totally objective is a pretty good idea since I trust reviewers here to be able to tell the difference between "crap product" and "this just didn't work for me personally". But if people are going to get caught up on the objectivity thing, maybe allowing the descriptive reviewer to do a review AND a separate description might be a good solution.
In the Pink, you are wonderful and patient. It says something really great about you and this company that you're willing to engage constructively on aspects of the review program.
In the Pink, you are wonderful and patient. It says something really great about you and this company that you're willing to engage constructively on aspects of the review program.
01/09/2009
Carrie Ann -- your original post read: "And the reviews/descriptions are anything BUT objective." You did not make it clear that you were talking about the descriptions ONLY. Especially because you mentioned tacky being overused.
If you read the long guidelines that In the Pink posted, you will see that the "Review Summary" (a.k.a. description you see on the main product page) is SUPPOSED to give objective details about a product's function. Perhaps it is true that some review summaries fail to do this, but people try their best. Here, I'm going to copy and paste some recent summaries/descriptions .
"This hard Lucite dildo and G/P-spot massager is an excellent toy, especially for those who want to try G-spot stimulation. It's strong, lightweight and pretty, and the handle makes it easy to use on a reclining partner. The dual ends (one bumpy, one smooth) give a choice of stimulation, and it's nonporous and easy to clean/sterilize so it can be used both vaginally and anally."
"The Cyberskin Ice Action Pussy is almost a great masturbator. The material provides a realistic feel, but requires meticulous care. The internal ribbing provides fantastic sensations, but the open ended design causes the toy to loose suction."
"The diamond hope is a very discreet, fairly powerful, multi speed massager that is small enough to go anywhere you can imagine! It's unique shape and contrasting diamond accents against velvet black make it an eye catcher! Those diamonds aren't just for looks though! They help you hold onto this little gem by providing you with an area that isn't as slippery when lubed up. It's beautiful presentation would make a great gift for any occasion!"
What else do you want?
If you read the long guidelines that In the Pink posted, you will see that the "Review Summary" (a.k.a. description you see on the main product page) is SUPPOSED to give objective details about a product's function. Perhaps it is true that some review summaries fail to do this, but people try their best. Here, I'm going to copy and paste some recent summaries/descriptions .
"This hard Lucite dildo and G/P-spot massager is an excellent toy, especially for those who want to try G-spot stimulation. It's strong, lightweight and pretty, and the handle makes it easy to use on a reclining partner. The dual ends (one bumpy, one smooth) give a choice of stimulation, and it's nonporous and easy to clean/sterilize so it can be used both vaginally and anally."
"The Cyberskin Ice Action Pussy is almost a great masturbator. The material provides a realistic feel, but requires meticulous care. The internal ribbing provides fantastic sensations, but the open ended design causes the toy to loose suction."
"The diamond hope is a very discreet, fairly powerful, multi speed massager that is small enough to go anywhere you can imagine! It's unique shape and contrasting diamond accents against velvet black make it an eye catcher! Those diamonds aren't just for looks though! They help you hold onto this little gem by providing you with an area that isn't as slippery when lubed up. It's beautiful presentation would make a great gift for any occasion!"
What else do you want?
01/09/2009
Quote:
Sure, SOME of them are good. But SOME of them are not.
Originally posted by
Epiphora
Carrie Ann -- your original post read: "And the reviews/descriptions are anything BUT objective." You did not make it clear that you were talking about the descriptions ONLY. Especially because you mentioned tacky being overused.
If you read ...
If you read ...
Carrie Ann -- your original post read: "And the reviews/descriptions are anything BUT objective." You did not make it clear that you were talking about the descriptions ONLY. Especially because you mentioned tacky being overused.
If you read the long guidelines that In the Pink posted, you will see that the "Review Summary" (a.k.a. description you see on the main product page) is SUPPOSED to give objective details about a product's function. Perhaps it is true that some review summaries fail to do this, but people try their best. Here, I'm going to copy and paste some recent summaries/descriptions .
"This hard Lucite dildo and G/P-spot massager is an excellent toy, especially for those who want to try G-spot stimulation. It's strong, lightweight and pretty, and the handle makes it easy to use on a reclining partner. The dual ends (one bumpy, one smooth) give a choice of stimulation, and it's nonporous and easy to clean/sterilize so it can be used both vaginally and anally."
"The Cyberskin Ice Action Pussy is almost a great masturbator. The material provides a realistic feel, but requires meticulous care. The internal ribbing provides fantastic sensations, but the open ended design causes the toy to loose suction."
"The diamond hope is a very discreet, fairly powerful, multi speed massager that is small enough to go anywhere you can imagine! It's unique shape and contrasting diamond accents against velvet black make it an eye catcher! Those diamonds aren't just for looks though! They help you hold onto this little gem by providing you with an area that isn't as slippery when lubed up. It's beautiful presentation would make a great gift for any occasion!"
What else do you want?
If you read the long guidelines that In the Pink posted, you will see that the "Review Summary" (a.k.a. description you see on the main product page) is SUPPOSED to give objective details about a product's function. Perhaps it is true that some review summaries fail to do this, but people try their best. Here, I'm going to copy and paste some recent summaries/descriptions .
"This hard Lucite dildo and G/P-spot massager is an excellent toy, especially for those who want to try G-spot stimulation. It's strong, lightweight and pretty, and the handle makes it easy to use on a reclining partner. The dual ends (one bumpy, one smooth) give a choice of stimulation, and it's nonporous and easy to clean/sterilize so it can be used both vaginally and anally."
"The Cyberskin Ice Action Pussy is almost a great masturbator. The material provides a realistic feel, but requires meticulous care. The internal ribbing provides fantastic sensations, but the open ended design causes the toy to loose suction."
"The diamond hope is a very discreet, fairly powerful, multi speed massager that is small enough to go anywhere you can imagine! It's unique shape and contrasting diamond accents against velvet black make it an eye catcher! Those diamonds aren't just for looks though! They help you hold onto this little gem by providing you with an area that isn't as slippery when lubed up. It's beautiful presentation would make a great gift for any occasion!"
What else do you want?
" If you are new to crops and flogging devices, the Impressions Crop is a nice introduction to an exciting and breathtaking experience. Advanced and experience users may laugh or mock at how cheap and flimsy this one is, but for those who simply just want to add some spice into the bedroom without paying such a hefty price for it, this is it, although there are far better ones out there."
" I ended up using this double penetration vibrator as a rabbit style vibrator instead. The short scorpion tail made dual insertion impossible and the warning sign on the back of the tin left me feeling perturbed."
"The G-Spot Yoko Yoko is not the kind of toy I'd buy with my own money, but it's tentacle-like appearance and powerful motors are bound to interest other buyers."
These are random examples of stuff that I - me, personally - found too subjective, too based upon opinion and not actually very descriptive of the toy itself.
Yanno. I"m sorry you're feeling all offended by me not liking some aspects of this program or some of the actual descriptions. But, like I said, it's a new program and it's far better to hear the negative stuff and be able to fix it than not.
At least I assumed so.
Obviously not as everyone is VERY wadded up over it. (Though DBD and toygirl have said virtually the same thing and it's just me who's catching grief over it.)
So. What else do I want? I want ALL the summaries to be as good as those you pointed out and NONE of them to say things like "tacky" or "I wouldn't buy it" or "the packaging perturbed me" or "some may laugh or mock this toy but, hey, it's a great piece of junk for a newbie!".
But I don't run the program, do I?
I understand people try hard, maybe even their best. But that doesn't mean they can't improve and they won't improve if the stuff that looks bad or hard to understand isn't pointed out.
And you can guarantee if it looks bad to any of us it looks even worse to the general public.
01/10/2009
Quote:
At the time.. I had not read the review. However, I stand by my point (in a later post) that the REVIEW should be allowed to call a product TACKY or shit even. The product description? No. Objective, descriptive and factual. Neutral.
Originally posted by
Epiphora
Wow, that's harsh of you. Tacky seems a fitting word for something that comes on a shitty keychain, smells horrible, and is loud. What would YOU have called it?
On a different point- I think having to flip through "descriptions, properties and reviews" to understand the product is both not likely and just plain stupid. Description is Properties translated into English with elaboration on use. Properties is the technical and size aspects.
(I have not even read all this thread yet, but I'm about too...)
01/10/2009
Quote:
And guess what? You keep getting offended by my replies.
Originally posted by
Carrie Ann
Sure, SOME of them are good. But SOME of them are not.
" If you are new to crops and flogging devices, the Impressions Crop is a nice introduction to an exciting and breathtaking experience. Advanced and experience users may laugh or mock ...
" If you are new to crops and flogging devices, the Impressions Crop is a nice introduction to an exciting and breathtaking experience. Advanced and experience users may laugh or mock ...
Sure, SOME of them are good. But SOME of them are not.
" If you are new to crops and flogging devices, the Impressions Crop is a nice introduction to an exciting and breathtaking experience. Advanced and experience users may laugh or mock at how cheap and flimsy this one is, but for those who simply just want to add some spice into the bedroom without paying such a hefty price for it, this is it, although there are far better ones out there."
" I ended up using this double penetration vibrator as a rabbit style vibrator instead. The short scorpion tail made dual insertion impossible and the warning sign on the back of the tin left me feeling perturbed."
"The G-Spot Yoko Yoko is not the kind of toy I'd buy with my own money, but it's tentacle-like appearance and powerful motors are bound to interest other buyers."
These are random examples of stuff that I - me, personally - found too subjective, too based upon opinion and not actually very descriptive of the toy itself.
Yanno. I"m sorry you're feeling all offended by me not liking some aspects of this program or some of the actual descriptions. But, like I said, it's a new program and it's far better to hear the negative stuff and be able to fix it than not.
At least I assumed so.
Obviously not as everyone is VERY wadded up over it. (Though DBD and toygirl have said virtually the same thing and it's just me who's catching grief over it.)
So. What else do I want? I want ALL the summaries to be as good as those you pointed out and NONE of them to say things like "tacky" or "I wouldn't buy it" or "the packaging perturbed me" or "some may laugh or mock this toy but, hey, it's a great piece of junk for a newbie!".
But I don't run the program, do I?
I understand people try hard, maybe even their best. But that doesn't mean they can't improve and they won't improve if the stuff that looks bad or hard to understand isn't pointed out.
And you can guarantee if it looks bad to any of us it looks even worse to the general public.
" If you are new to crops and flogging devices, the Impressions Crop is a nice introduction to an exciting and breathtaking experience. Advanced and experience users may laugh or mock at how cheap and flimsy this one is, but for those who simply just want to add some spice into the bedroom without paying such a hefty price for it, this is it, although there are far better ones out there."
" I ended up using this double penetration vibrator as a rabbit style vibrator instead. The short scorpion tail made dual insertion impossible and the warning sign on the back of the tin left me feeling perturbed."
"The G-Spot Yoko Yoko is not the kind of toy I'd buy with my own money, but it's tentacle-like appearance and powerful motors are bound to interest other buyers."
These are random examples of stuff that I - me, personally - found too subjective, too based upon opinion and not actually very descriptive of the toy itself.
Yanno. I"m sorry you're feeling all offended by me not liking some aspects of this program or some of the actual descriptions. But, like I said, it's a new program and it's far better to hear the negative stuff and be able to fix it than not.
At least I assumed so.
Obviously not as everyone is VERY wadded up over it. (Though DBD and toygirl have said virtually the same thing and it's just me who's catching grief over it.)
So. What else do I want? I want ALL the summaries to be as good as those you pointed out and NONE of them to say things like "tacky" or "I wouldn't buy it" or "the packaging perturbed me" or "some may laugh or mock this toy but, hey, it's a great piece of junk for a newbie!".
But I don't run the program, do I?
I understand people try hard, maybe even their best. But that doesn't mean they can't improve and they won't improve if the stuff that looks bad or hard to understand isn't pointed out.
And you can guarantee if it looks bad to any of us it looks even worse to the general public.
I didn't mean to imply that there aren't bad product summaries out there. But your original post made some sweeping statements about the program itself, not just ineffective summaries. And, like I said, you made it sound like you were talking about the reviews themselves too.
Toygirl did NOT say essentially the same thing. She didn't call anyone out. DBD did, and I replied to her.
01/10/2009
Quote:
Then you should not have made that statement. It was rude.
Originally posted by
Dragon
At the time.. I had not read the review. However, I stand by my point (in a later post) that the REVIEW should be allowed to call a product TACKY or shit even. The product description? No. Objective, descriptive and factual. Neutral.
On a ...
On a ...
At the time.. I had not read the review. However, I stand by my point (in a later post) that the REVIEW should be allowed to call a product TACKY or shit even. The product description? No. Objective, descriptive and factual. Neutral.
On a different point- I think having to flip through "descriptions, properties and reviews" to understand the product is both not likely and just plain stupid. Description is Properties translated into English with elaboration on use. Properties is the technical and size aspects.
(I have not even read all this thread yet, but I'm about too...)
On a different point- I think having to flip through "descriptions, properties and reviews" to understand the product is both not likely and just plain stupid. Description is Properties translated into English with elaboration on use. Properties is the technical and size aspects.
(I have not even read all this thread yet, but I'm about too...)
Anyone who spends time on the internet should be willing to click a couple tabs to read up on a product they want to buy. And whatever you mean by "understanding the product" I'm pretty sure can be achieved by the description and the properties tab alone.
01/10/2009
OK. Time out everyone.
I'm not actually sure exactly how this is getting so hostile, but something is definitely being misunderstood.
From my perspective.... (Arrogant, tired and lonely tonight.)
1. CarrieAnn was stating that she doesn't see the benefits of the Descriptions program because they were not objective. They were merely summaries of the review which might at times be an inappropriate summary of the product as a description.
2. I initially was surprised to hear of "Tacky" as part of a product description. That doesn't sound professional or businesslike to me.
3. Backseat Boohoo is not taking offense that this was actually her review, but is looking at it as some interesting feedback. Go HER!
4. Epiphora is upset. I'm not completely sure why, but I'm guessing that it has to do with feeling that the entire descriptions program which she is a part is being criticized.
(5. I'm totally confused about "calling anyone out, but since I don't have a clue unless someone wants to bring that up- I don't care.)
Those members of the descriptions program have a right to feel upset if it is being strongly criticized. They do some interesting work there. However Carrie Ann (and I) can also state that it may not actually be meeting all of it's intended benefits.
The program is better than what it used to be. However. I do not believe that it would be either hard to implement technically or from a reviewer standpoint to have the reviewer write a SEPARATE brief summary to be used for the Descriptions. I think this would be a vast improvement over the current program. This is especially applicable for products where the reviewer is not happy with the product. There opinion is not that of everyone.
(Case in point- there might be times when a non-discreet vibrator on a huge keychain that makes a lot of noise might actually be fun or cool. Think kink or sex parties and drama ok?)
I'm not actually sure exactly how this is getting so hostile, but something is definitely being misunderstood.
From my perspective.... (Arrogant, tired and lonely tonight.)
1. CarrieAnn was stating that she doesn't see the benefits of the Descriptions program because they were not objective. They were merely summaries of the review which might at times be an inappropriate summary of the product as a description.
2. I initially was surprised to hear of "Tacky" as part of a product description. That doesn't sound professional or businesslike to me.
3. Backseat Boohoo is not taking offense that this was actually her review, but is looking at it as some interesting feedback. Go HER!
4. Epiphora is upset. I'm not completely sure why, but I'm guessing that it has to do with feeling that the entire descriptions program which she is a part is being criticized.
(5. I'm totally confused about "calling anyone out, but since I don't have a clue unless someone wants to bring that up- I don't care.)
Those members of the descriptions program have a right to feel upset if it is being strongly criticized. They do some interesting work there. However Carrie Ann (and I) can also state that it may not actually be meeting all of it's intended benefits.
The program is better than what it used to be. However. I do not believe that it would be either hard to implement technically or from a reviewer standpoint to have the reviewer write a SEPARATE brief summary to be used for the Descriptions. I think this would be a vast improvement over the current program. This is especially applicable for products where the reviewer is not happy with the product. There opinion is not that of everyone.
(Case in point- there might be times when a non-discreet vibrator on a huge keychain that makes a lot of noise might actually be fun or cool. Think kink or sex parties and drama ok?)
01/10/2009
Quote:
My original post:
Originally posted by
Epiphora
And guess what? You keep getting offended by my replies.
I didn't mean to imply that there aren't bad product summaries out there. But your original post made some sweeping statements about the program itself, not just ineffective summaries. ...
I didn't mean to imply that there aren't bad product summaries out there. But your original post made some sweeping statements about the program itself, not just ineffective summaries. ...
And guess what? You keep getting offended by my replies.
I didn't mean to imply that there aren't bad product summaries out there. But your original post made some sweeping statements about the program itself, not just ineffective summaries. And, like I said, you made it sound like you were talking about the reviews themselves too.
Toygirl did NOT say essentially the same thing. She didn't call anyone out. DBD did, and I replied to her.
I didn't mean to imply that there aren't bad product summaries out there. But your original post made some sweeping statements about the program itself, not just ineffective summaries. And, like I said, you made it sound like you were talking about the reviews themselves too.
Toygirl did NOT say essentially the same thing. She didn't call anyone out. DBD did, and I replied to her.
"Is it just me or is shopping for a new toy becoming far more complicated with the new product descriptions being, in essence, reviews of the toy? "
I politely asked if it was just me or if anyone else was finding it more complicated. Horrible, I know.
"I'm looking around and it's taking me what seems like forever to get to the nitty gritty, to get the very basics about the toys. There is no quick, to the point description anymore. "
I state that it seems to take me longer to find out the basics of a toy. Wrong of me, I know.
"And the reviews/descriptions are anything BUT objective. I can't remember which review/description it was but one of them used the word "tacky" somewhere around seventeen times. Great for a review but when it's the sole product description? I'm sure not going to buy it."
Oops. I guess the exaggeration didn't go over well. But I stand by the fact that when the only documentation on a toy comes across as subjective and negative it's not something I'm going to buy. I'd read the guidelines to posting these review/descriptions in a previous post and it seemed to me that being as objective as possible was the goal.
"I honestly much preferred the product information given by the companies than having to weed thru reviews to get the basics. There's something to be said for a succinct description that hits the high points in less than a hundred words, that tells you what the toy was actually made to do and doesn't have a bunch of fluffy opinion in it."
I stated my preference. I know, that's horrible, too. Sweeping statements about the program abound.
I'm quite sorry you feel I "called someone out". The person I supposedly did this to, however, has already emailed me and let me know she didn't take offense. So why are you?
01/10/2009
Okay, okay. I was trying not to say anything- because I freaking hate conflict- BUT I think everyone needs to have an orgasm before typing another word.
I can see why some are a little whats the word? Concerned, defensive, I don't know. But when someone pops into the forums with such a negative sweeping statement about an entire group of reviewers after having hardly any presence- it does feel like an attack. "And the reviews/descriptions are anything BUT objective." The descriptions project has been going on for at least two months now. If there were concerns- it just seems like late timing to finally bring them up.
On the flip side- I can see there are areas that need improved. Some descriptions may not have the most objective summaries- but rather than making such negative remarks on one single review, show some descriptions you like and ask if more can be like this. Or rewrite one of your own summaries as if it were a descriptions for an example.
Remember- we all loose the aspect of not being able to hear vocal tones, see faces, all the non verbals of communication. It's extremely important to think of the ways your words can be interpreted.
& referring back to Backseat Boohoo-"No fighting, everybody, this is a happy place! Full of orgasms and love and chocolate chip cookies!"
I can see why some are a little whats the word? Concerned, defensive, I don't know. But when someone pops into the forums with such a negative sweeping statement about an entire group of reviewers after having hardly any presence- it does feel like an attack. "And the reviews/descriptions are anything BUT objective." The descriptions project has been going on for at least two months now. If there were concerns- it just seems like late timing to finally bring them up.
On the flip side- I can see there are areas that need improved. Some descriptions may not have the most objective summaries- but rather than making such negative remarks on one single review, show some descriptions you like and ask if more can be like this. Or rewrite one of your own summaries as if it were a descriptions for an example.
Remember- we all loose the aspect of not being able to hear vocal tones, see faces, all the non verbals of communication. It's extremely important to think of the ways your words can be interpreted.
& referring back to Backseat Boohoo-"No fighting, everybody, this is a happy place! Full of orgasms and love and chocolate chip cookies!"
01/10/2009
Quote:
No... this has nothing to do with the program being criticized. I see the flaws in it as well as anybody. I already mentioned that I struggle with writing the objective reviews because usually my reviews are very subjective. But Carrie Ann did not go about this in a very nice way. Backseat Boohoo took the "criticism" wonderfully. But she is my friend, and I'm not as forgiving as her. So I spoke my mind. Then it became a back-and-forth with Carrie Ann, and she seems just as "upset" as me.
Originally posted by
Dragon
OK. Time out everyone.
I'm not actually sure exactly how this is getting so hostile, but something is definitely being misunderstood.
From my perspective.... (Arrogant, tired and lonely tonight.)
1. CarrieAnn was stating that she ...
I'm not actually sure exactly how this is getting so hostile, but something is definitely being misunderstood.
From my perspective.... (Arrogant, tired and lonely tonight.)
1. CarrieAnn was stating that she ...
OK. Time out everyone.
I'm not actually sure exactly how this is getting so hostile, but something is definitely being misunderstood.
From my perspective.... (Arrogant, tired and lonely tonight.)
1. CarrieAnn was stating that she doesn't see the benefits of the Descriptions program because they were not objective. They were merely summaries of the review which might at times be an inappropriate summary of the product as a description.
2. I initially was surprised to hear of "Tacky" as part of a product description. That doesn't sound professional or businesslike to me.
3. Backseat Boohoo is not taking offense that this was actually her review, but is looking at it as some interesting feedback. Go HER!
4. Epiphora is upset. I'm not completely sure why, but I'm guessing that it has to do with feeling that the entire descriptions program which she is a part is being criticized.
(5. I'm totally confused about "calling anyone out, but since I don't have a clue unless someone wants to bring that up- I don't care.)
Those members of the descriptions program have a right to feel upset if it is being strongly criticized. They do some interesting work there. However Carrie Ann (and I) can also state that it may not actually be meeting all of it's intended benefits.
The program is better than what it used to be. However. I do not believe that it would be either hard to implement technically or from a reviewer standpoint to have the reviewer write a SEPARATE brief summary to be used for the Descriptions. I think this would be a vast improvement over the current program. This is especially applicable for products where the reviewer is not happy with the product. There opinion is not that of everyone.
(Case in point- there might be times when a non-discreet vibrator on a huge keychain that makes a lot of noise might actually be fun or cool. Think kink or sex parties and drama ok?)
I'm not actually sure exactly how this is getting so hostile, but something is definitely being misunderstood.
From my perspective.... (Arrogant, tired and lonely tonight.)
1. CarrieAnn was stating that she doesn't see the benefits of the Descriptions program because they were not objective. They were merely summaries of the review which might at times be an inappropriate summary of the product as a description.
2. I initially was surprised to hear of "Tacky" as part of a product description. That doesn't sound professional or businesslike to me.
3. Backseat Boohoo is not taking offense that this was actually her review, but is looking at it as some interesting feedback. Go HER!
4. Epiphora is upset. I'm not completely sure why, but I'm guessing that it has to do with feeling that the entire descriptions program which she is a part is being criticized.
(5. I'm totally confused about "calling anyone out, but since I don't have a clue unless someone wants to bring that up- I don't care.)
Those members of the descriptions program have a right to feel upset if it is being strongly criticized. They do some interesting work there. However Carrie Ann (and I) can also state that it may not actually be meeting all of it's intended benefits.
The program is better than what it used to be. However. I do not believe that it would be either hard to implement technically or from a reviewer standpoint to have the reviewer write a SEPARATE brief summary to be used for the Descriptions. I think this would be a vast improvement over the current program. This is especially applicable for products where the reviewer is not happy with the product. There opinion is not that of everyone.
(Case in point- there might be times when a non-discreet vibrator on a huge keychain that makes a lot of noise might actually be fun or cool. Think kink or sex parties and drama ok?)
01/10/2009
I will say that the one comment--"The G-Spot Yoko Yoko is not the kind of toy I'd buy with my own money, but it's tentacle-like appearance and powerful motors are bound to interest other buyers"--was me being as subjective as I felt was possible. I wanted to make it clear that while I personally would not buy the product, that doesn't mean it doesn't appeal to other people. I also rated it a 4/5 because, beyond a few flaws, it's a good toy for people who are interested in what it can provide. If I had been writing in a completely subjective manner (ie, only how I PERSONALLY felt about the toy), it probably would've been a strong 2 or a weak 3.
Other than that, can we please not fight? I understand and appreciate both sides of the various arguments going on here, but none of them are worth fighting over.
Other than that, can we please not fight? I understand and appreciate both sides of the various arguments going on here, but none of them are worth fighting over.
01/10/2009
Quote:
That should say objective. WOW GO ME.
Originally posted by
Backseat Boohoo
I will say that the one comment--"The G-Spot Yoko Yoko is not the kind of toy I'd buy with my own money, but it's tentacle-like appearance and powerful motors are bound to interest other buyers"--was me being as subjective as I felt was possible. I
...
I will say that the one comment--"The G-Spot Yoko Yoko is not the kind of toy I'd buy with my own money, but it's tentacle-like appearance and powerful motors are bound to interest other buyers"--was me being as subjective as I felt was possible. I wanted to make it clear that while I personally would not buy the product, that doesn't mean it doesn't appeal to other people. I also rated it a 4/5 because, beyond a few flaws, it's a good toy for people who are interested in what it can provide. If I had been writing in a completely subjective manner (ie, only how I PERSONALLY felt about the toy), it probably would've been a strong 2 or a weak 3.
Other than that, can we please not fight? I understand and appreciate both sides of the various arguments going on here, but none of them are worth fighting over.
Other than that, can we please not fight? I understand and appreciate both sides of the various arguments going on here, but none of them are worth fighting over.
Epiphora, it's not forgiving, it's horny. The more people get angry, the less likely they are to have sex with me! Sistah needs LAID. >_<
01/10/2009
Quote:
SO DO I! Let me find my magic jet plane that will miraculously land me in your front yard. I'll bring the Big Foot loaded. Or maybe just my biggest piece of luggage loaded.
Originally posted by
Backseat Boohoo
That should say objective. WOW GO ME.
Epiphora, it's not forgiving, it's horny. The more people get angry, the less likely they are to have sex with me! Sistah needs LAID. >_<
Epiphora, it's not forgiving, it's horny. The more people get angry, the less likely they are to have sex with me! Sistah needs LAID. >_<
01/10/2009
Quote:
Dude. I'm tired of your sarcasm. This could've been a useful discussion, but you insisted upon arguing with me far after your statement "We're entitled to our opinions, right? " and my statement "If that's what you prefer, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise." We're not going anywhere now.
Originally posted by
Carrie Ann
My original post:
"Is it just me or is shopping for a new toy becoming far more complicated with the new product descriptions being, in essence, reviews of the toy? "
I politely asked if it was just me or if anyone else was finding it ...
"Is it just me or is shopping for a new toy becoming far more complicated with the new product descriptions being, in essence, reviews of the toy? "
I politely asked if it was just me or if anyone else was finding it ...
My original post:
"Is it just me or is shopping for a new toy becoming far more complicated with the new product descriptions being, in essence, reviews of the toy? "
I politely asked if it was just me or if anyone else was finding it more complicated. Horrible, I know.
"I'm looking around and it's taking me what seems like forever to get to the nitty gritty, to get the very basics about the toys. There is no quick, to the point description anymore. "
I state that it seems to take me longer to find out the basics of a toy. Wrong of me, I know.
"And the reviews/descriptions are anything BUT objective. I can't remember which review/description it was but one of them used the word "tacky" somewhere around seventeen times. Great for a review but when it's the sole product description? I'm sure not going to buy it."
Oops. I guess the exaggeration didn't go over well. But I stand by the fact that when the only documentation on a toy comes across as subjective and negative it's not something I'm going to buy. I'd read the guidelines to posting these review/descriptions in a previous post and it seemed to me that being as objective as possible was the goal.
"I honestly much preferred the product information given by the companies than having to weed thru reviews to get the basics. There's something to be said for a succinct description that hits the high points in less than a hundred words, that tells you what the toy was actually made to do and doesn't have a bunch of fluffy opinion in it."
I stated my preference. I know, that's horrible, too. Sweeping statements about the program abound.
I'm quite sorry you feel I "called someone out". The person I supposedly did this to, however, has already emailed me and let me know she didn't take offense. So why are you?
"Is it just me or is shopping for a new toy becoming far more complicated with the new product descriptions being, in essence, reviews of the toy? "
I politely asked if it was just me or if anyone else was finding it more complicated. Horrible, I know.
"I'm looking around and it's taking me what seems like forever to get to the nitty gritty, to get the very basics about the toys. There is no quick, to the point description anymore. "
I state that it seems to take me longer to find out the basics of a toy. Wrong of me, I know.
"And the reviews/descriptions are anything BUT objective. I can't remember which review/description it was but one of them used the word "tacky" somewhere around seventeen times. Great for a review but when it's the sole product description? I'm sure not going to buy it."
Oops. I guess the exaggeration didn't go over well. But I stand by the fact that when the only documentation on a toy comes across as subjective and negative it's not something I'm going to buy. I'd read the guidelines to posting these review/descriptions in a previous post and it seemed to me that being as objective as possible was the goal.
"I honestly much preferred the product information given by the companies than having to weed thru reviews to get the basics. There's something to be said for a succinct description that hits the high points in less than a hundred words, that tells you what the toy was actually made to do and doesn't have a bunch of fluffy opinion in it."
I stated my preference. I know, that's horrible, too. Sweeping statements about the program abound.
I'm quite sorry you feel I "called someone out". The person I supposedly did this to, however, has already emailed me and let me know she didn't take offense. So why are you?
01/10/2009
Can EF just sponsor a massive reviewer orgy?
...did I use the wrong "it's"? I'm sorry, I'm lusting for chocolate right now, and the only thing chocolately left within a 5 mile radius of me is a gift box of chocolates I bought for a friend. I think I'm going INSANE.
Anyway, I think the point of this whole post is that we need to re-establish what, exactly, the descriptions program does and what people are expected to write for it (which Victoria has pretty much done). I openly admit that I've made blatant mistakes in many reviews, which is why I generally guide people towards more experienced and level-headed reviewers. I am not the most knowledgeable or the most sane person, but I definitely have one of the biggest mouths you'll ever hear, and it's hard to keep that from bleeding in to my writing.
I also concede the point, however, that miscommunication is very easy over the internet, and certain issues should probably be brought up in a more general matter in the future. My feelings aren't hurt in the slightest, but I'm REALLY tough to ruffle, and I'd hate to make anybody in this community feel attacked.
Let's have no hard feelings over these matters. I appreciate everyone's concerns and criticisms!
...seriously, guys, if a Hershey bar doesn't magically appear in front of me in the next 10 minutes...
...did I use the wrong "it's"? I'm sorry, I'm lusting for chocolate right now, and the only thing chocolately left within a 5 mile radius of me is a gift box of chocolates I bought for a friend. I think I'm going INSANE.
Anyway, I think the point of this whole post is that we need to re-establish what, exactly, the descriptions program does and what people are expected to write for it (which Victoria has pretty much done). I openly admit that I've made blatant mistakes in many reviews, which is why I generally guide people towards more experienced and level-headed reviewers. I am not the most knowledgeable or the most sane person, but I definitely have one of the biggest mouths you'll ever hear, and it's hard to keep that from bleeding in to my writing.
I also concede the point, however, that miscommunication is very easy over the internet, and certain issues should probably be brought up in a more general matter in the future. My feelings aren't hurt in the slightest, but I'm REALLY tough to ruffle, and I'd hate to make anybody in this community feel attacked.
Let's have no hard feelings over these matters. I appreciate everyone's concerns and criticisms!
...seriously, guys, if a Hershey bar doesn't magically appear in front of me in the next 10 minutes...
01/10/2009
So basically because y'all are friends and I'm a relatively new presence on the forums (though I've been with EF since Nov 07) I'm automatically the bad guy?
The reviews aren't that objective. I don't really see how they can be. That doesn't mean they - or the folks who write them - are bad. Why would anyone assume not objective = bad?
I was NOT trying to be insulting to anyone. I was pointing out that, to me, things seemed harder to browse lately. That it seems like more work to get basic information. (As for why it took so long for me to come to this conclusion I'm going to say that it's likely because I don't browse the site every day. And because as more and more new style descriptions are put out there, they're more noticeable. Honestly, I did not have some ulterior motive and plot to come in on Jan 8th and start complaining. The more I noticed something the more I felt the need to ask if, perhaps, others did too. That's all.)
I seriously didn't expect folks to be so thin skinned about it. A new program is going to have bugs, right? And it's going to get some criticism and some people who don't like it and errors are going to be pointed out.
I'm guessing the whole "lack of previous presence" is the real issue and this would have been taken utterly differently had someone else said it.
The reviews aren't that objective. I don't really see how they can be. That doesn't mean they - or the folks who write them - are bad. Why would anyone assume not objective = bad?
I was NOT trying to be insulting to anyone. I was pointing out that, to me, things seemed harder to browse lately. That it seems like more work to get basic information. (As for why it took so long for me to come to this conclusion I'm going to say that it's likely because I don't browse the site every day. And because as more and more new style descriptions are put out there, they're more noticeable. Honestly, I did not have some ulterior motive and plot to come in on Jan 8th and start complaining. The more I noticed something the more I felt the need to ask if, perhaps, others did too. That's all.)
I seriously didn't expect folks to be so thin skinned about it. A new program is going to have bugs, right? And it's going to get some criticism and some people who don't like it and errors are going to be pointed out.
I'm guessing the whole "lack of previous presence" is the real issue and this would have been taken utterly differently had someone else said it.
01/10/2009
Quote:
I don't want to get LAID. I want to FUCK. Some how there is something in the terms that's just different. I have a dragon in my personality these days! You know- the wild animal part of you...
Originally posted by
Backseat Boohoo
That should say objective. WOW GO ME.
Epiphora, it's not forgiving, it's horny. The more people get angry, the less likely they are to have sex with me! Sistah needs LAID. >_<
Epiphora, it's not forgiving, it's horny. The more people get angry, the less likely they are to have sex with me! Sistah needs LAID. >_<
(Although I'll play with you too! I have someone that would about die to watch!)
01/10/2009
Quote:
Ok, Dude.
Originally posted by
Epiphora
Dude. I'm tired of your sarcasm. This could've been a useful discussion, but you insisted upon arguing with me far after your statement "We're entitled to our opinions, right? " and my statement "If that's what you prefer, I'm not going to try to
...
Dude. I'm tired of your sarcasm. This could've been a useful discussion, but you insisted upon arguing with me far after your statement "We're entitled to our opinions, right? " and my statement "If that's what you prefer, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise." We're not going anywhere now.
01/10/2009
Quote:
I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just saying we all shouldn't fight.
Originally posted by
Carrie Ann
So basically because y'all are friends and I'm a relatively new presence on the forums (though I've been with EF since Nov 07) I'm automatically the bad guy?
The reviews aren't that objective. I don't really see how they can be. That doesn't ...
The reviews aren't that objective. I don't really see how they can be. That doesn't ...
So basically because y'all are friends and I'm a relatively new presence on the forums (though I've been with EF since Nov 07) I'm automatically the bad guy?
The reviews aren't that objective. I don't really see how they can be. That doesn't mean they - or the folks who write them - are bad. Why would anyone assume not objective = bad?
I was NOT trying to be insulting to anyone. I was pointing out that, to me, things seemed harder to browse lately. That it seems like more work to get basic information. (As for why it took so long for me to come to this conclusion I'm going to say that it's likely because I don't browse the site every day. And because as more and more new style descriptions are put out there, they're more noticeable. Honestly, I did not have some ulterior motive and plot to come in on Jan 8th and start complaining. The more I noticed something the more I felt the need to ask if, perhaps, others did too. That's all.)
I seriously didn't expect folks to be so thin skinned about it. A new program is going to have bugs, right? And it's going to get some criticism and some people who don't like it and errors are going to be pointed out.
I'm guessing the whole "lack of previous presence" is the real issue and this would have been taken utterly differently had someone else said it.
The reviews aren't that objective. I don't really see how they can be. That doesn't mean they - or the folks who write them - are bad. Why would anyone assume not objective = bad?
I was NOT trying to be insulting to anyone. I was pointing out that, to me, things seemed harder to browse lately. That it seems like more work to get basic information. (As for why it took so long for me to come to this conclusion I'm going to say that it's likely because I don't browse the site every day. And because as more and more new style descriptions are put out there, they're more noticeable. Honestly, I did not have some ulterior motive and plot to come in on Jan 8th and start complaining. The more I noticed something the more I felt the need to ask if, perhaps, others did too. That's all.)
I seriously didn't expect folks to be so thin skinned about it. A new program is going to have bugs, right? And it's going to get some criticism and some people who don't like it and errors are going to be pointed out.
I'm guessing the whole "lack of previous presence" is the real issue and this would have been taken utterly differently had someone else said it.
Fuck is pretty much my favorite word ever.
01/10/2009
Quote:
I like the word fuck, too. I try to use it in every third sentence. (Though I refrained here! Lol. I didn't want to be offensive, damn it! I really was trying to be to the point, simple and polite!)
Originally posted by
Backseat Boohoo
I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just saying we all shouldn't fight.
Fuck is pretty much my favorite word ever.
Fuck is pretty much my favorite word ever.
01/10/2009
Scharffen Bergen chocolate for Backseat Boohoo (far better than Herseys...) and a plane ticket to Beautiful Dreamer's place!
Ephidora gets tickled by Jimbo Jones and then fucked with a Hitachi magic wand.
Carrie Ann gets to play with me and glass.
We're all going to fuck, drink Texas sized margaritas in honor of Dame Demi and write love letters to Bulma. It will be quite the party.
(Can we just call it enough yet? Nobody meant to piss anyone off, and everyone has rights to post on the forum. We're all up to late. I know because I'm on pacific time...)
Ephidora gets tickled by Jimbo Jones and then fucked with a Hitachi magic wand.
Carrie Ann gets to play with me and glass.
We're all going to fuck, drink Texas sized margaritas in honor of Dame Demi and write love letters to Bulma. It will be quite the party.
(Can we just call it enough yet? Nobody meant to piss anyone off, and everyone has rights to post on the forum. We're all up to late. I know because I'm on pacific time...)
01/10/2009
Quote:
I'm in EST. There's an international airport 45 minutes from my house. & I have lots of beds!! And a really good blender!
Originally posted by
Dragon
Scharffen Bergen chocolate for Backseat Boohoo (far better than Herseys...) and a plane ticket to Beautiful Dreamer's place!
Ephidora gets tickled by Jimbo Jones and then fucked with a Hitachi magic wand.
Carrie Ann gets to play with me and ...
Ephidora gets tickled by Jimbo Jones and then fucked with a Hitachi magic wand.
Carrie Ann gets to play with me and ...
Scharffen Bergen chocolate for Backseat Boohoo (far better than Herseys...) and a plane ticket to Beautiful Dreamer's place!
Ephidora gets tickled by Jimbo Jones and then fucked with a Hitachi magic wand.
Carrie Ann gets to play with me and glass.
We're all going to fuck, drink Texas sized margaritas in honor of Dame Demi and write love letters to Bulma. It will be quite the party.
(Can we just call it enough yet? Nobody meant to piss anyone off, and everyone has rights to post on the forum. We're all up to late. I know because I'm on pacific time...)
Ephidora gets tickled by Jimbo Jones and then fucked with a Hitachi magic wand.
Carrie Ann gets to play with me and glass.
We're all going to fuck, drink Texas sized margaritas in honor of Dame Demi and write love letters to Bulma. It will be quite the party.
(Can we just call it enough yet? Nobody meant to piss anyone off, and everyone has rights to post on the forum. We're all up to late. I know because I'm on pacific time...)
01/10/2009
