Monthly Archives: July 2011

The (terrible?) world of “professional” Amazon reviewers

Posted on by

A recent study of some of Amazon.com’s top 1000 reviewers has PC Magazine writer John Dvorak questions the validity of their reviews:

In the first academic study of its kind, Trevor Pinch, Cornell University professor of sociology and of science and technology studies, independently surveyed 166 of Amazon’s top 1,000 reviewers, examining everything from demographics to motives. What he discovered was 85 percent of those surveyed had been approached with free merchandise from authors, agents or publishers.

Pinch, who also found the median age range of the reviewers he surveyed was 51 to 60, a surprise said Pinch, because the image of the internet is more of a young person’s thing. Amazon is encouraging reviewers to receive free products through Amazon Vine, an invitation-only program in which the top 1,000 reviewers are offered a catalog of free products to review…

This is the fraud aspect of the process that cannot be tolerated. And now to find out they are in a much older demographic makes me think they are just product hoarders who will say what they need to say to get more products. This conclusion is hinted at by the professor.

I do not like man on the street reviews. I never have, and I’ve always thought they could be easily corrupted by smart public relations folks who have already dove into what they call social media. This includes phony personas on Twitter and Facebook that are used to sway public opinion, shipping free goodies to “influential” bloggers, and things like this Amazon scandal.

Dvorak is not really arguing that reviews are not valuable but rather that because Amazon does not fully disclose how these reviewers operate, customers could be duped. The problem here is trust: Dvorak and others might assume that reviewers are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts but instead they are “professionals.” Instead, these reviewers are being “paid.” This is a classic gatekeepers problem: how do you know that a reviewer is trustworthy and giving unvarnished opinions? There are plenty of critics these days for various media outlets and websites. I suspect many average citizens have to read through multiple reviews from a single critic to see if their thoughts line up with their own or to see if they are consistent.

Of course, Amazon relies on a crowd sourcing approach, just like aggregator websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. Do these top reviewers really sway people’s opinions about products since there are often many others who provide reviews of the same products?

Why not ask Amazon whether critical reviewers have been kicked out of these programs? Dvorak is suggesting that these reviewers would speak positively about products just in order to receive more – couldn’t Amazon fight back against this?

My first thoughts when I saw this study a while back was that how confident could Pinch be about his findings based on 166 reviewers. Why not go for a larger sample out of the 1000 Top Reviewers?

(Side note: at the end, Dvorak applauds Pinch for tackling this topic:

By the way (and off topic), you should read my writings over the past 30 years, because I have been hounding sociologists around the world to begin to study these sorts of computer and Internet activities. Give Professor Pinch an award, will you! Maybe that will encourage more studies.

Maybe so.)

Wheaton sells Hubble site, plans for new grocery store

Posted on by

For over a decade, the City of Wheaton has sought a developer for the Hubble Middle School site on the southeast edge of downtown Wheaton. The city now has an agreement with a developer who wants to build a new grocery store:

The effort to sell the old Hubble Middle School site ended Thursday when Wheaton Warrenville Unit District 200 revealed the terms of a recently announced sale to Chicago-based Bradford Equities LLC.

At a special meeting, school officials said they were thrilled to move on and look forward to seeing a grocery store at the highly visible northwest corner of Roosevelt and Naperville roads…

The sale also prohibits the developer from seeking or accepting tax increment finance help from the city, gives Bradford seven months to inspect the property and obtain permits, and most importantly to some people, asks Bradford to make a “good-faith effort” to work with the park district on 13 acres not suitable for development because they are on a flood plain…

Board President Rosemary Swanson said the resolution meets several goals the school district has had all along, including placing the site on the city and school district’s tax rolls.

This story hints at some of the reasons Wheaton has paid so much attention to this site:

1. Wheaton is a built-out community so there are few opportunities to purchase and develop sizable portions of land.

2. The site has a very important location: it is at the busy intersection of Naperville and Roosevelt Roads. It is also an opportunity to expand Wheaton’s downtown to the south. While the downtown has traditionally been more on the northern side of the railroad tracks, the city has made an effort in recent years to expand to the south. This new development will expand the city’s gateway on Roosevelt Road which currently consists of a large welcome sign at Main Street.

3. A grocery store will help bring in tax dollars. This matters because Wheaton has few opportunities to add commercial property but more broadly, refers back to the city’s large amount of institutional/church property which don’t contribute tax dollars. This new project will broaden the city’s tax base.

4. The grocery store will offset the loss of the Jewel store which closed in early 2008. While the city wanted to save that store, Jewel decided it was too small (and old?) to maintain – and the chain has newer, more modern stores on both the north and south side of Wheaton. This new store fits with the city’s goals of adding residential units to the downtown as residents will now be able to walk to a grocery store.

5. Earlier suggestions for the Hubble site had included a hotel, residential units, and some stores. It sounds like the new development will be much more limited and some of the recreational functions of the property will be retained in parkland and gymnasiums.

6. The whole process has been slowed down by the economic crisis. Earlier requests for proposals generated a good deal of interest but it has taken a lot of time to get to this point.

In the end, it sounds like the final product will be less ambitious than some had hoped for but it will still help bring more tax dollars into the city and a grocery store will return to the downtown.

Possible issues with interstate megachurch sites

Posted on by

American megachurches have had multiple satellite sites for years. But now at least several have pursued satellite sites in other states:

Pastor Mark Driscoll’s megachurch recently announced plans to expand into Portland, Oregon, and Orange County, California, using multi-site campuses that feature live bands and a sermon piped in from the main campus in Seattle.

The move is part of a trend among megachurches to extend their brand of church to new communities, in hopes of reaching unchurched people with the gospel. But critics fear the out-of-state campuses turn churches into franchises like McDonald’s or Starbucks.

The reason for the new campuses is simple, according to the Mars Hill website.

“Oregon needs Jesus Christ,” claims the introduction of the new location. “The city of Portland is known for many things, but the gospel of Jesus is nowhere on the list.”

What might be the issues with this and responses to these issues?

1. It is unclear how far away a satellite campus has to be to be objectionable. Let’s say Willow Creek opened a satellite campus in northwestern Indiana, still within the Chicago region. Is this a problematic interstate campus or not? The distance between Seattle and Orange County or between Oklahoma and Phoenix does seem larger.

2. The McDonaldization/commodification/branding of churches seems to go against the local community aspect of church. This seems to be typically related to the popularity of a particular pastor/preacher who could draw a viable audience all over.

2a. There is a strong case to be made for emphasizing local community or even a parish model. But, evangelical churches left this behind a long time ago so is this simply a logical extension of this trend?

2b. How much of opposition to these new sites is based on the need for community in church versus how large churches tend to draw their members from existing churches rather than from non-attendees? If a megachurch satellite moves into an area, local churches may lose congregants.

2c. How much will this matter in the future as anybody with an Internet connection can easily access sermons and podcasts? If the primary purpose of a satellite church is to share a sermon, people can get this elsewhere.

2d. This is a reminder of the pastor-centric nature of many evangelical churches.

3. It would be interesting to hear discussions within megachurches that go forward for interstate sites: what is the primary motivation for doing this?