Extremely Useful vs. Useful

When I'm browsing reviews I like to read them, rate them, and then see what other people have rated the reviews. Usually the way I rate a review will end up being similar to the way that other reviewers rate it. Sometimes though I find myself very impressed with a review only to find that the majority of reviewers only find it to be useful. Other times I'll think a review is only useful, but I find that most people think it is extremely useful. These differences in opinion make me wonder how other reviewers decide between rating a review as useful or extremely useful. So, my question to you is what do you look for in an extremely useful review as compared to a useful review?

The difference, to me, usually comes down to whether I "feel" it or not. A reviewer can include all the necessary information but do it in a really unimpressive way, sometimes. Maybe it's boring or rushed or doesn't flow perfectly. That will get only a useful because it just didn't blow me away.

On the other hand, sometimes a reviewer includes a bit of extra info about the product/body/company/u se that really sets it above and I consider that extremely useful. It's a fine line, though

Adriana and I have similar ways of determining "extremely useful." And I don't have a better explanation than "If I feel it." Some reviews are just very well written and I have a moment while reading it that I'm like "Wow!" and provided all the required/expected info is there, it'll get an extremely useful. The "wow" can come from really good phrasing, terrific explanation/descriptio ns, extra info that I thought I'd have to ask about, or something else that's unexpected but greatly appreciated.

But most reviews don't "wow" me, and if I'm wavering, I'll go with "useful," especially now with the public voting and a lot of people seemingly voting a bit higher on average than normal.

For me, it's easy.

Extremely useful means I come away with no real questions about the toy other than "will I like it?"

Useful means most everything was covered but I may have a question.

And so it goes, on down the list.

I do not expect reviews to sell me on a product but I do expect them to include enough info that I can make a good decision.

For me, it's easy.

Extremely useful means I come away with no real questions about the toy other than "will I like it?"

Useful means most everything was covered but I may have a question.

And so it goes, on down the list.

I do not expect reviews to sell me on a product but I do expect them to include enough info that I can make a good decision.

To me, an extremely useful review is one that makes me feel like I went to a store and actually got a chance to play with the product in person. It also makes an attempt to look at the big picture. A review that describes only the reviewer's experiences with the toy (e.g. This butt plug is too big! It sucks!) without any attempt to think of why he/she as an individual liked/disliked it, or to think of what kinds of people/situations it might be good/bad for (Maybe this butt plug would be better for more advanced users)... that's not useful to me. Even if the reviewer is completely different from me in all respects, I should still feel like I might have an idea of how the product would be for me.

Style also feeds into the equation. A review that was a chore to read because of bad writing or spelling and punctuation errors is not going to be ranked as extremely useful even if all of the information is there.

I really don't like the idea of having an arbitrary system of judgment when it comes to rating: ratings affect contributors' general ratings as well as how customers weight the review. Those things are fairly serious. I don't take rating reviews lightly because I know time goes into their making and purchases are based on them (and their reception).

I personally am a little turned off by the idea of something "not feeling right" and it being voted down as a result. If you are not conscious of the reason why, you may be voting based on something very biased. To me it's not fair or professional to give a "useful" rating to a review that includes everything, has no apparent flaws, but didn't make you "feel" some ambiguous thing. That also makes it difficult for reviewers such as myself to improve: if we don't have a critique, we can't become better.

I also think that syntax/rules of written English/blabla are important; if you can't understand the review then you can't take anything away from it. However, it's important to keep the intended function of grammar in mind. The function of grammar is not to give a false sense of superiority to people that have the privilege of education/the kind of mind that is able to "perfectly" apprehend all of its devices. The function of grammar is to provide a standard that organizes written and spoken language so that we aren't all speaking or own little languages. In other words, so we can understand one another. So I don't really care if someone misspells a few words so long as the interview is coherent and the mistakes aren't distracting.

All that said, I more or less adhere to Carrie Ann's guidelines with a slight alteration. I ask a lot of questions, so my criteria is more like "Am I left with questions about major issues like material, cleaning, functions, use, etc?" I can come up with a question for pretty much everything.

I really don't like the idea of having an arbitrary system of judgment when it comes to rating: ratings affect contributors' general ratings as well as how customers weight the review. Those things are fairly serious. I don't take rating reviews lightly because I know time goes into their making and purchases are based on them (and their reception).

I personally am a little turned off by the idea of something "not feeling right" and it being voted down as a result. If you are not conscious of the reason why, you may be voting based on something very biased. To me it's not fair or professional to give a "useful" rating to a review that includes everything, has no apparent flaws, but didn't make you "feel" some ambiguous thing. That also makes it difficult for reviewers such as myself to improve: if we don't have a critique, we can't become better.

I also think that syntax/rules of written English/blabla are important; if you can't understand the review then you can't take anything away from it. However, it's important to keep the intended function of grammar in mind. The function of grammar is not to give a false sense of superiority to people that have the privilege of education/the kind of mind that is able to "perfectly" apprehend all of its devices. The function of grammar is to provide a standard that organizes written and spoken language so that we aren't all speaking or own little languages. In other words, so we can understand one another. So I don't really care if someone misspells a few words so long as the interview is coherent and the mistakes aren't distracting.

All that said, I more or less adhere to Carrie Ann's guidelines with a slight alteration. I ask a lot of questions, so my criteria is more like "Am I left with questions about major issues like material, cleaning, functions, use, etc?" I can come up with a question for pretty much everything.