Adding to a review on watchdog?

On some of the Garden Watchdog reviews I've seen where people have added to their reviews. How do I do that? I don't see an "edit" under my name or anything. Thanks!

If you scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page, you'll see a link to add to or edit your comments.

To add to ecrane's note - go to the entry you previously reviewed. Scroll down to the spot wher e you typically find the "add a comment" link - in its place, you'll see a link to "add to your review".

Aha! Thanks, I didn't think of looking down there. Thanks very much for your quick responses, ecrane and Terry!
Glad I found this forum!

It would be nice to have the ability to create a separate review for a company that I previously reviewed. For example, I may have had a positive experience last year or 2 years ago, but a negative or neutral one this year. The system currently changes my original rating and my additional comments are "buried" with the earlier comment and are less likely to be noticed. Besides, that older positive experience still stands -- it's only the recent experience that warrants a different rating.

good idea, figaro. I've had similar experiences, only the opposite- bad a few years ago and positive this year.

Lakeside, thanks for chiming in.

The garden mail order industry seems to be constantly changing. It would be nice to be able to determine easily which companies are giving consistently good service and those that are changing for the better or for the worse.

When I have a bad experience with a company I think to myself, "Darn, I've already rated this company. If I rate them again nobody's going to see the feedback!"

I hope the Admins will take note and see what they can do.

There is a big upside to having an update "bubble up" to the top again so that it appears among the newer reviews. However, that involves some technical programming issues we have not been able to surmount.

Having an update count as a separate rating? Probably not a good idea. I'm mainly an optimistic person, but I know there are some disgruntled (and arguably vindictive) customers who would use that feature to keep adding an "update" and piling on the negative reviews to punish a company for a single, past incident.

There are also some companies that have *probably* slid in a few "friendly" reviews to plump their ratings and have managed to stay beneath our radar screen.

The more reviews a company tries to sneak in, the more likely we are to catch them. But if they could just keep piling on the positives by adding updates to existing, "sleeper" false positives, we probably wouldn't be able to detect it - at least not as easily as we can spot a pattern of falsified reviews pouring in.

And fielding complaints from vendors dealing with the same customer over and over, along with trying to detect the false updates would create a lot of additional administrative work for us, which is something we try to avoid in order to keep the GWD a free feature for all.

Would it be possible to allow coloured fonts? This would enable a positive review to be typed in - say - green and tthen a later negative addition to the same review in -perhaps - red. Of course the reverse would also apply.

That way its not a new review but it would be obvious at a glance that there had been a change in standards over time.

That would be up to Dave ;o)

Hi Terry,

Upon reading your post I agree with the notion that it is not a good idea to have updates count as separate ratings. The current system is very reliable -- and the fact that each member rates a vendor only once contributes to this reliability.

And, if there were a way that the programmers could sort the ratings according to the most recent edit date, that would be nice!

I'm for bubbling and giving it equal weight with brand new reviews (if it is not getting it currently.)

Giving it equal weight would lead to problems.

It may be a good thing for legitimate, positive review.

It would also be fair if a downturn was precipitated by a genuine change in status (i.e., a new order, or a failure of the company to follow through on their promise to make things right.)

But since there is no way to ensure that an update isn't just someone deciding to reopen an old wound, it wouldn't be fair to companies to let someone keep dredging up the past and "dinging" their overall rating for something that happened months or years ago - if it even happened the way they recounted it.

It also wouldn't be fair for a company to use an update to re-inflate their rating every now and then, assuming they managed to slide some fictitious reviews past us.

On the dredging up issue - the company can respond and challenge it - especially if there was not even a new order! Phony positive reviews by unscrupulous companies are possible now - with first-time reviewers. I have confidence that it can be picked up and is now.

The company can respond, but it doesn't negate the effect on their rating if a past negative is simply brought back up and "refreshed".

We don't encourage companies to engage in a back-and-forth debate in the GWD. In fact, we've had a few instances where we've had to put a halt to that activity, because neither party was willing to let the other have the last word.

We do look for false positives. But letting companies "double-up" (or benefit 3, 4, 5 times) from the same rating that is simply refreshed with an updated comment will add a lot more administrative work for us to monitor - and it's time we don't really have to spare on a free feature.

Bottom line - I really don't think it's feasible or wise to let an update count the same as a new rating. I'm not sure it's even technically possible for Dave to let an update move the original rating to a newer spot - I know it isn't possible right now.

Updates are nice. But good companies attract new customers, who should leave new reviews. Bad companies also attract new customers, who find the GWD and leave a new rating to warn others.

But on the flip side, doesn't a new negative rating carry more weight than say, a three or five year old positive one? I always had a problem with people who, based on a single bad experience will write a negative review, often before even giving the company a chance to make things right. Is it fair that this should count more than someone's updated positive rating, which shows quality customer service over time? Your other points are all valid. Some minimum period should be required before an 'update' could be counted as new. I like the bubbling up as an improvement over the present system though. ^_^

I can see why you don't want to do updates. I think that makes sense. I wish there was some way to incorporate the ability to praise long term good service (other than the initial positive review) though. I'm not sure how to do that without people being able to add false positives due to the lack of being able to verify a purchase before putting in an entry. This isn't like Ebay, where you only have access if you did purchase something. Even on Ebay- you're able to rate the seller only once- even if you buy from them every week, you can add a comment for each purchase, but the positive review doesn't effect their feedback score totals. I've always disliked that :) but I guess when they weighed it out, that's how they fell too.

Actually E-bay .co.uk has changed its policy and feedback is now allowed to count if it is for transactions more than a week apart.

I've noticed one or two reviews recently that were posted by the vendors promoting their own product. I find this offensive. Vendors should not be allowed to create a brand new entry in the GWD.

This message was edited May 14, 2008 9:30 AM

Vendors are allowed to post a statement about their company (which will more often than not be a description of what they sell and some great wonderful things about themselves), and they're allowed to post rebuttals to negative reviews, but they're not allowed to post reviews of themselves. If you've noticed that someone's done that then you should use the "contact us" link and send the info to the admins so they can remove it. But if it's just the initial company statement then they're allowed to do that.

It appears to me that Santa Rosa Gardens "plugged" their own company with a positive rating on May 1st of this year. Since they're already in the top 30, why do they need to do this? This did not sound like a customer comment since it was written in "first person."

Thanks! That appears to have been an honest mistake on their part, and has been moved to "company comment" status.

Any others?

Okus- us too, I just hadn't noticed yet- cool!! Also they have started only using the last year's feedback in the numbers- nice, lot's of changes, I hadn't been aware of. One of them (the sellers not being able to leave a negative rating in response to a negative rating you left them) I wish had been in effect 2 months ago ;)

"What's new in Feedback Profiles?
When you click on the number in parentheses next to any member ID, you'll now see a new, enhanced Feedback Profile. At a glance, you can see the most recent and relevant information about a user — and you can now leave repeat Feedback to contribute more than once to that user's overall Feedback Score.

See the scores and ratings that matter the most

The revamped Feedback Profile contains all the information of the old design, but we've organized it to help you see recent numbers and notes that matter the most.

* Feedback Score information appears at the top near the user's name and image. This gives you a quick view of how long the user has been a member and all the ratings the member has earned since first joining.
* Recent Feedback Ratings show you how the member has been performing in the past 1, 6, and 12 months.
* Detailed Seller Ratings help give you fast insight into a seller's performance.

Your Feedback counts now more than ever

Members can now leave Feedback for each other more than once, and that Feedback may count towards members' overall Feedback Scores.

Members have always been able to leave repeat Feedback for each other, but that Feedback was only calculated in members' Feedback Scores once. This was the plan to keep Feedback fair and useful for the entire community.

To help keep Feedback Scores fair with our revised approach, members can now leave Feedback again, and, as long as the transactions members are leaving Feedback for occurred in separate weeks, the repeat Feedback will be calculated in members' Feedback Scores. For Feedback, eBay defines a week as Monday through Sunday, Pacific Time.

For example, a buyer wins an item on Tuesday, then receives it and gives the seller positive Feedback on Thursday. If the buyer wins another item that week with the same seller, the Feedback the buyer leaves will not count toward the seller's Feedback Score. But if the buyer wins another item the following Tuesday, the Feedback will count toward the seller's Feedback Score.

Repeat Feedback is a great way for buyers to reward their favorite sellers with the recognition they deserve. The one-week limit helps keep the system fair and makes sure that buyers and sellers and their Feedback continue to help keep eBay a safe and fun place to buy and sell.

Be sure to leave Feedback for every transaction. And remember — as long as your repeat transactions occur in separate weeks, your Feedback will be calculated in the other member's Feedback Score."

On a related note, why are vendors posting reviews of plants that they sell on PlantFiles?? And what exactly is the role of these vendor 'representatives'?

I don't have a problem with a vendor posting a review of a plant, as long as the review isn't focused on "where-to-buy", but instead is a description of the plant, or an assessment of its relative merits ;o)

We encourage each listing in the GWD to assign someone as their designated representative. That person can post rebuttals to reviews, add a company comment, sign up the company for PlantScout, provide us with updates to their listing, etc.

And since they grow those plants for a living, they probably know how to care for them and what conditions are good for them better than most of us, so they could provide some valuable info. I don't see a problem with them posting plant reviews as long as they're not plugging themselves in the process, and I'm sure if they ever plug themselves in the review, the admins would be happy to edit/remove that comment if it's reported.

That all sounds fine but what are the chances they will post a negative for a plant they sell?? There should be a separate 'description' for them to post to, akin to the statement in GWD.

Chances are they don't grow/sell plants they don't think highly of, that wouldn't really make sense now would it? Why would they sell plants they hate or think are horrible plants? So therefore any reviews they post on things they sell are bound to be positive, and I don't see why their positive opinion of it that led them to want to sell it is any less valid than my positive experience with it in my garden. And for the occasional "bad apple" vendor who's writing positive things about something that's not a nice plant, I think people are more than capable of reading the other reviews and seeing that the general trend is negative.

Well I'll just agree to disagree on that one. I see no difference between a company being allowed to rate themselves on GWD and being allowed to (objectively) rate something they sell. If one is not allowed, neither should the other. Just common sense and avoiding any appearance of conflict of interest to me.

I'm a stickler for keeping the GWD free from trumped-up comments, and spend a fair amount of my time reviewing feedback trends and patterns, and investigating potential abuse. It's not a pleasant task, but one that needs to be done regularly to keep things on the up-and-up and fair for all.

However, just as a vendor will probably have a positive bias toward the plants they sell, other members have their own positive or negative bias toward certain groups of plants (comments regarding non-native and invasive plants come to mind.) We don't make anyone else declare their motivation when they leave a comment for a plant; a vendor is at least identifiable as such (if you click on a member's name, you can easily see if they are representing a particular company in the GWD.)

Arguably, most of us write somewhat slanted/biased comments about the plants we love or loathe ;o) As long as the comment is on-topic and not a self-promotional post, then a vendor's opinion and observations are certainly as valid as any other gardener's comments. Readers can -and should - choose whether to give any comment credence or take it with a grain of salt.

Again, some valid points. I think there is a slight distinction, however, between someone having a bias based on something they believe passionately about (native plant lovers, for example), vs. someone having a commercial interest. I think it would be better if it was more obvious that the person posting is a vendor rep. I don't believe the burden should not be on the members to 'check out' the person posting. Perhaps it can say vendor rep under the screen name, or something similar.

You guys have always been great about removing posts (and often the people who are posting) that are disguised as genuine thread posts, but often turn out to be someone promoting their product. Now I can certainly see the argument that the vendor reps in PF are more legit than these people, but full disclosure lets us all know. Then we can judge each review, alongside each other, and give it 'credence or take it with a grain of salt.'

Are there some examples of vendor posts in PlantFiles that are out-of-line, or overly self-serving?

None that I am aware of. I was speaking to the general idea.

Here's one example of why I'm concerned. A top GWD company sells a perennial that self-sows in a big way, at least in my area. In their description on their website there is no mention of this possibility at all. Now some people might not buy that plant if it was included. So if they did not include it on their site, can I expect them to include it in a review of the plant on PF?

Ooops, we cross-posted. Did the vendor who sells this plant leave a comment in PlantFiles?

Addressing your previous post....
Okay - that's good to know. With that being the case, I'm reluctant to add this to Dave's to-dos at this time, for these reasons:

1) His current to-do list is pretty long as it is ;-)

2) It's arguably premature (and maybe completely unnecessary) to create a solution in anticipation of a future problem arises. We've had vendor members for several years; if this hasn't been a problem up to now, it may never be a problem.

3) We encourage vendors to be "regular gardeners" when they interact on our site. By giving them a permanent "vendor" badge that follows them around, it may defeat our efforts to get them to leave their sales hat at the door when the enter DG ;o)

If there's a vendor whose PlantFiles comments are abusing the system, please let us know (via the Contact Us link) and we'll deal with it. If it becomes a widespread problem, then we'll definitely revisit the idea of using technology to preempt it.

This message was edited May 15, 2008 1:43 PM

First, I completely understand the incredible workload of Dave and I'm sure there are more pressing issues.

No - in the case I mentioned, the vendor did not leave a review, but it illustrates the point. Please keep in mind that I just stumbled upon this yesterday. I was not aware that vendors had been posting to PF. You say there is no current problem, but I was responding to your specific question regarding out-of- line and overly self-serving comments. My argument is that it is already a problem to have them posting ratings at all (if they're only going to post positives, how helpful is it?), especially if they're not identifying themselves as sellers of the product. You can simply ask them to identify themselves in the review- that should not require any work from Dave.

Thanks, Terry.