Garden Watchdog Question

I've really liked the Garden Watchdog update where there is no percentage given, allowing the reader to view comments and make a decision as to whether or not it is a company worth considering. I remember in that discussion thread remarks about multiple experiences with a vendor and updating your own rating. I have done that with a few vendors on recent orders, but realized that my post, posts way down in the comments as my original. If we are updating our ratings, would not it be listed as a most recent feedback comment, going by the most recent date?

Many of my listings in Garden Watchdog were done when I first began here, after all, that is how I found Dave's Garden. I would have to say that having comment updates buried in the listings does not encourage me to write another review. I wondered if this is something that could be discussed as an option to change to encourage updating our own feedback on repeated encounters with companies.

Thanks for any input and for all you guys do here at Dave's.

Magnolia lover,
I thoroughly agree with your comments for the Garden Watchdog. It only makes good sense to have the most recent near the top. Hope this is changed. ^_^

Karin

Dave may decide to address this himself, but in the meantime, I'll give you what I know (because we've talked about this.)

The system is not designed to let an update "bubble" your comment to the top. It would take some considerable programming effort to rework the existing system, and at this time, it's not a really high priority among other to-do's.

The other reason we drag our feet at this is the potential for abuse. If someone has an ax to grind, they could keep adding "updates" to their original comment, pushing it to the forefront again and again.

Bad companies attract enough negative ratings along the way to paint a clear picture for readers; there's usually no reason for past complaints to get pushed up ahead of newer complaints.

A company with the misfortune of having one grudge-bearing customer could find themselves being bullied and hounded in perpetuity, over an event that took place months or years ago, and that would not be fair to to a company to let someone do that.

But short of us monitoring and deciding whose "updates" to censor out, and whose are legitimate, there wouldn't be any way for us to prevent that from happening. (In a few extreme cases, we have had to clamp down on "updates" and tell both member and vendor to cease-and-desist. We don't have the resources to monitor all 6,500-plus entries that way.)

It's too bad that the potential of a "bad egg" would limit the new encounters to be listed as most recent. How likely is it that a person that has such a bad experience would try a particular vendor again? Or maybe you mean that they would continue to comment on just the bad experience repeatedly. That's sad.

I guess I feel like if I'm on page 20 of a vendor's feedback, I go and update a new experience/order, it really has no impact. A person looking at this company will most likely never see my comments, not that that is the only reason to post a comment. I almost find the repeated (positive) encounters more reassuring, which I guess is why I was enquiring.

The technology aspect is the biggest hurdle for this--it's just not feasible with the current architecture.

But we also have to weigh the potential for abuse (and how much time it would take to monitor for it) into consideration, too. While many readers may not make it to the very earliest comments, I do think when they see an updated entry from a repeat customer, it is a reassuring indicator of how a company is doing. So please don't lose heart, or feel your updates don't count...they do, for those who read beyond the first page ;o)

Hi Terry,

I remember taking part in that discussion a while back and do agree that updates simply get lost and lose their relevance. Is it possible, if some period of time has passed since one's original review AND any follow-ups, that a 'new' review can be generated? You can decide what that period would be - one, two (more?) years? Hopefully, the poster would mention that he/she had posted a review in the past.

This period of blocked out time should discourage the people with an axe to grind, yet enable people to share their recent experience, address any changes in how the company is treating them, etc.

Speaking for myself, there are a few companies that I have used many times since my review that I would like to update. I tend to stick with a handful of reliable sources. Thanks!

It's a good idea, but I don't know how easy it would be to program it--that's a technical question for Dave.

It seems like the same misuse could happen with victor's idea that seemed to be what the concern was my original post. Maybe allowing an addition to your rating could be allowed after a certain time has past, thus bringing the comment up to a more current listing, instead of pages back. I think that repeated successes with a company and providing feedback is something I look for in a vendor now. Do people like them so much that they return? Or do they give that negative rated company another chance based on how they dealt with a particular problem in the past? I think it is all about the continuum of service and product.

Those are all good points--you'll get no argument from me (or Dave, if I can presume to speak for him on this topic.)

But the Watchdog is a piece of custom software built by Dave for this specific purpose, and I suspect it's pretty complex.

Over the years, Dave and I have talked about follow-up feedback, and brainstormed ways to give followups more prominence and weight without inadvertantly creating a way for companies or disgruntled customers to exploit the system for their own benefit.

At the end of the day, all these ideas require significant changes to the Watchdog's architecture. Dave's time is a resource that he must manage wisely, and make sure he's focusing on the things that matter most to the community.

Thanks Terry. I suggested a brand new review to allow a 'clean' report, so those always negative people don't drag their past litanies to the top.

I understand ;o)

1) Having a "timer" in the system would be a modification, and it would require some thought as to how it should work, and programming time to implement and test it.

2) Monitoring the feedback to make sure it isn't a rehashing of old wrongs (or a redux of the same positive experience) would have to be a manual process--there's just no way to prevent it with automated tools. That would cause us to spend more time reading and editing each new entry, and would lead to making more "judgment calls" on what is allowed and what isn't. That is something we are loathe to do, because it erodes our "hands-off" neutral stance that we have to maintain.

When the old thread comes up to make a new review, you are able to also change the rating based on your most recent experience, right? So either way could work, if implemented, it just depends on how relevant you think the prior experiences are.

I know you administrators have a lot on your plate these days. I understand also that this may not take priority, but I just wanted to throw it out while I was thinking about it. Thanks for your time to respond and to the others who have chimed in here.


This message was edited Nov 10, 2008 10:33 AM