Stamp Collection Center

..good one kim

Well ikey the meaning of your statement that you once had some sort of "prophetic dream that someone, somewhere, said something nice ..." is not at all clear. A less ambiguous comment by you would have more than likely garnered a different response by me

@Oracle of Delphi




I think each website is different when it comes to allowing/encouraging reviews. The opinion I expressed applied to my website, SCF may have different policy.

Personally I see anonymous reviews as a real can of forms. Sadly some people use anonymity with malicious intents (either to gain personal profit by writing fake positive reviews on one's business; or by badmouthing the competitor; or then they just like trolling on everything). If, or more precisely when that happens, the only one carrying the consequences and cleaning up the mess is the poor website owner.

Basically it all comes down to trust. For example this place has got over 7000 members - who's word do you trust? For me that list is about few dozen members with whom I've got relationship beyond/outside this forum, or who I know to be professionals in their field. As far as the rest of members go, they could be aliens from Mars trying to persuade me on numismatics instead of my precious stamps ;) In short it's very naive to trust everything that you read online (especially when it comes from anonymous/non-verifiable sources).

Review websites (like TripAdvisor, Yelp etc.) acknowledge the issues of anonymous reviews, and they've got all sorts of tricks in their sleeve to make the reviews more creditable. But it's an uphill battle they're fighting. These news articles should give everyone a more 'realistic' image on the problems of online reviews:

- http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhand...think-again/

- http://www.forbes.com/sites/retailw...e-reviewers/

If you think this is not happening on the world of stamps/philately, then think again. Dealers are different from us collectors, and for some of them all means to get the next sales are fair. I acknowledge some may consider this a cynical view, but having blocked hundreds of 'fake' comments and reviews in my years as a blogger I preserve myself that privilege.

Just my 5 cents worth,

-k-

I concur trust is a key element of properly assimilating another person's review of a listing or vender. But this has always been true. Well before the internet I took with a grain of salt that my neighbor thought his kids were smart and his wife beautiful. But I don't feel that these opinion are worthless or even a slippery slope. When someone provides an opinion you obviously want to see an somewhat objective opinion and hope they understand that they may be influencing the food on the table of others. But going all the way back to the Better Business Bureau, there have always been organizations or processes to determine the experience of other consumers.
Should we discount them all because these are sometimes abused? No, not at all. We should discount those opinion in which we do not trust and still do our homework. Form your own opinion (start by buying slowly and build a relationship). Seek out opinions from those whom you do trust. Find metrics which are not easily influenced (i.e. false reviews or ebay's seller ratings). Done properly, there is great value in earning from others. But always keep an open mind that your previous opinion/knowledge may not be 100% correct. Recognize your weaknesses and avoid emotional buys.
There are some really great dealers out there. It just takes a bit of work to find them. Stamp Smarter maintains list of outstanding venders which are periodically audited.
Don

Well, I appreciate the specific feedback from Jenny2U and the philosophical feedback from Ikey Pikey even if I'm too slow to grasp the full meaning thereof. My little diatribe was basically addressing the notion that folks should refrain from reviews of business establishments for fear of retribution of some type. Of course, the views of scb and 51studebaker are well taken - that trust is a big issue when it comes to how seriously to take someone else's review, anonymous or not. Re my example of Tripadvisor, there are no doubt many fake reviews that slip by whatever screens the website has lying in wait. One has to use one's judgment as to how much weight to put on a review or series of reviews, based on, among other things, factors such as the consistency of reviews, the details contained in a review that serve to plausibly support the overall judgement of the review, and one's own instinct as to whether a review sounds believable or smells like just a malicious entry. Even if a review is "authentic", one has to gauge as best one can the perspective of the reviewer - someone who is used to eating in top notch restaurants is not going to be as easily impressed with the food and service at a particular establishment as someone for whom going to Denny's is a treat. Likewise, a very experienced and knowledgeable philatelist may have a completely different view of a particular auction house or dealer than a relative novice such as myself.

Call me naive as a new participant, but I tend to trust the posters in this forum, with a higher level of confidence in those folks who have been participating for some time and appear to have a high level of credibility with other participants. I trust that folks are conveying their actual experiences with the dealers/auction houses in question, just as I have contributed my own real experiences with certain auction houses in the "Auction Houses - The Good Guys Thread" as well as in the thread I started on Regency Superior Auctions. In the end, however, as 51studebaker points out, there's no substitute for doing one's homework and developing one's own experiences and relationships. I just find it helpful to hear about other folks' experiences before testing the waters with a new service provider.

The fundamental problem is anonymity. People exaggerate, stretch the truth and lie more often if they think no one will know who they are. I know this from "reviews" on Rate My Professor, to speak to my own field of work.

On SCF even though people have screen-names rather than using their "real" names, they are not as anonymous as on Yelp or Rate My Professor or Amazon reviews. People develop a profile here, after 100 or so posts. Many use their own first name when they conclude a comment.

Moreover, some are tied (by their choice) to their ebay stores or offerings. To what degree an ebay seller is linked to a "real" person's profile varies, but if one has bought from an ebay seller, one learns (in most cases), the mailing address and real name of the person once a shipment arrives.

A few even use their full real names as their screen names here.

SCF members want to be liked and respected, just as most people in general do. So an SCF member is "accountable" to some degree, even under his screen name, for what he writes. This is not true of Yelp and its many variants.

Hence, Yelp reviews are next-to-useless. Worse than that, it has become a form of slander and character-assassination. But people treat these reviews as if they are trustworthy. Same for Rate-my-Professor which has now become a major factor in how students choose which classes to register for, at least at my university.

Yes, it is true that one can read-between-the-lines in an Amazon or Yelp or RMP review and arrive at some elements of truth. Systems that give an identity to a reviewer over multiple reviews ( Amazon) are closer to what happens here on SCF than those that are totally anonymous--where one has no idea which or how many reviews are coming from Person X or Person Y, like RMP or (I think) Yelp.

So there's a hierarchy, with Yelp and RMP at the bottom. And the key factor is the degree of anonymity. Total anonymity leads to total unaccountability and thus to virtually total non-credibility.

Re Rate-my-Professor: My cousin's kid, teaching at a student-friendly graduate school, tells me that the ratings system at that school has made grades a matter for ill-disguised negotiation, both in the form of bribery (scratch my back and I'll scratch yours) and blackmail (scratch my back, or else).

Games theory people, like the recently deceased Dr Nash, would explain that anonymous feedback amongst players who know each other makes for a very dangerous game for the players with the most to lose.

SCF is hardly anonymous if you are trying to build a rep or accrue street cred, even if it is behind a screen name. People tend to out themselves, sooner or later, allowing their opinions to be weighted. If you just drop in one day, and read the handful of posts that seem to address your issue, you need to remember how little you know about what is behind those opinions.

This sort of digital literacy comes with experience. To help my children & others, I've been coining little aphorisms like "you know that most anything you find at a site you do not know well is just about as reliable as something you overheard at a bus stop, right?"

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

And, yes, that is what passes for a little aphorism 'round me.