Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon's Fake Review Problem

brianbien.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 336 posts

Re: Amazon's Fake Review Problem

#241

Post by TheAceOfHearts »

pwaai wrote: post #202
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #95

It's not perfect, but I've been using Fakespot [0] for all my Amazon purchases. It helps filter down the info a bit, which makes it easier to make decisions. Honestly, I think what we need is a Consumer Report reboot. I signed up for a subscription recently, and was very disappointed with their service, although I still like idea behind it. I'm often overwhelmed by the huge number of options, and it can be incredibly…

what did you find disappointing about it? First time I heard about it, what is it they do that's worth subscribing? On researching, yeah it's honestly a chore everytime because so much disinformation/misinformation. I'm not sure what decentralization would look like or even make sense. It seems like you just need some central guy like CR to vet and test out all the products. I go to Youtube for that tho.

Well, I'd had access to their physical catalogues when I was younger through my parents' subscription, so I had good memories of their reviews.

Their site has TONS of tracking and marketing scripts, which I consider anti-user. Furthermore, if you block or disable any, the site breaks. For a service claiming to be pro-user they seem to be engaging in a lot of dark patterns.

Aside from that, I found their reviews lacking in detail. For many categories they have dozens of options marked as recommended, with prices ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars, but no explanation of why one might prefer certain models. I subscribed because I wanted help narrowing down my options.

I wouldn't suggest subscribing for more than a single month. They have some useful information, but not enough to justify a long-term subscription.

Re: Amazon's Fake Review Problem

#242

Post by dizzystar »

mistermann wrote: post #237
wpietri wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, fake reviews have been a problem for years and are only getting more sophisticated. The latest scam is "brushing": https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/27/american...

"Due to the unbalanced pricing policies of the United Postal Union and subsidies from the U.S. Postal Service, it costs people in China virtually nothing to ship small packages to the U.S. That, combined with the super cheap price they pay for the junk they ship, makes brushing a quick and cost effective way to move up the sales rankings -- which means everything for e-commerce merchants." I simply can't fathom why W…

Everyone US seller is, sort of, and Amazon is as well. Customers still expect their stuff in 2 days, expect easy returns, and expect QC at the warehouse, and that's something China cannot replicate.

Fake reviews have been an easy exploit for sellers for a long time, and sellers will often buy from competitors just to leave verified bad reviews. It's an ugly game I don't have an answer to.

Amazon recently introduced Vine: https://www.amazon.com/gp/vine/help

Re: Amazon's Fake Review Problem

#243

Post by dheera »

For me, I only look at a review if it states at least one or two non-trivial negative aspects of the product. That alone weeds out a lot of fake reviews.

Most honest reviews are never 100% positive.

Re: Amazon's Fake Review Problem

#244

Post by brigade »

derefr wrote: post #206
DanielleMolloy wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listening is extremely subjective though. Headphone types can be better / worse for certain listening habits (there are people out there who don't think great bass makes great music, folks), and for different ears. Music taste itself is extremely subjective. Best thing is still to get to a trusted hifi store nearby with your own, known music in best quality and your current best headphone model and test through candi…

> Headphone types can be better / worse for certain listening habits No they can't. Loudspeakers (of all kinds) can either faithfully convert electrical signals into the vibrations they represent, or they can't. Equalizer presets can be better / worse for certain listening habits. There is no reason, when even a $5 MP3 player has EQ presets, that headphones shouldn't be aiming for a flat frequency-response curve. Now…

For loudspeakers it's more complicated than a simple flat on-axis response; the dispersion into the room is critically important. Which in turn means that a flat frequency response curve is the wrong target for headphones designed to mimic good speakers, because a flat loudspeaker is not flat when measured at the ear, which is where headphone drivers are located.

Harman has done some really interesting research on this - https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-target-respo...

Re: Amazon's Fake Review Problem

#245

Post by alok-g »

mjevans wrote: post #23
jseliger wrote: post #3

I don't care much about the reviews, but I care a lot about the fake / phony / not-as-described merchandise: http://seliger.com/2017/01/09/tools-continued-careful-buy-am... . I've actually changed behavior and tried harder to buy from the original maker, if possible.

That's the behavior that I would like to see Amazon encourage as a solution. Tracking the product back to it's actual origin of manufacturer (and showing us the consumer). Where, exactly, was the factory? The lot number and date of manufacturer? Official model and revision number? Requiring these things will give buyers better hard data to detect and exclude middle-level-marking shenanigans as well as combat 'bait an…

>> Tracking the product back to it's actual origin of manufacturer.

>> Where, exactly, was the factory? The lot number and date of manufacturer? Official model and revision number?

Check out Amazon Transparency:

https://www.amazon.com/b?node=15466573011

Re: Amazon's Fake Review Problem

#246

Post by alok-g »

dheera wrote: post #243

For me, I only look at a review if it states at least one or two non-trivial negative aspects of the product. That alone weeds out a lot of fake reviews. Most honest reviews are never 100% positive.

Yes. Even if it mentions some "non-trivial" positive aspects, it still helps.

Re: Amazon's Fake Review Problem

#247

Post by x0x0 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #174
minedwiz wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that also filter out stuff sold by vendors, but fulfilled by Amazon?

It is only items sold by Amazon.com, so yes.

Still doesn't matter. For FBA stuff, they mix items in their warehouses. So even if you buy from Amazon, you can receive an item out of the FBA program. Thus you have no idea if it's the real deal or a knockoff sent from who-knows.

edit: That wasn't clear. Try two: Inventory submitted by FBA vendors is commingled with Amazon inventory in Amazon's warehouses. When you, a sucker, buys it, you have zero control over whether the widget you get was purchased by Amazon from the manufacturer or sent to Amazon by Billy Bob's Sellin' Totally Not Fake Shit Shack, which definitely got it from the manufacturer, not the bottom price on Alibaba. This is true even if you buy from Amazon and not an FBA vendor.

Re: Amazon's Fake Review Problem

#248

Post by derefr »

brigade wrote: post #244
derefr wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Headphone types can be better / worse for certain listening habits No they can't. Loudspeakers (of all kinds) can either faithfully convert electrical signals into the vibrations they represent, or they can't. Equalizer presets can be better / worse for certain listening habits. There is no reason, when even a $5 MP3 player has EQ presets, that headphones shouldn't be aiming for a flat frequency-response curve. Now…

For loudspeakers it's more complicated than a simple flat on-axis response; the dispersion into the room is critically important. Which in turn means that a flat frequency response curve is the wrong target for headphones designed to mimic good speakers, because a flat loudspeaker is not flat when measured at the ear, which is where headphone drivers are located. Harman has done some really interesting research on th…

Good point, but I do wonder—is "full fidelity" really best defined as matching the sound profile of good speakers? Or is it better defined by e.g. whatever the sound engineer was hearing on their studio monitors when they finished the mastering process?

That is: in most digital artistic media, the goal of the reproduction process is to faithfully carry across the art (and engineering) that "went in" on the other side. Listeners can tweak to their preference from there, but the baseline should be to replicate the work as the artist experiences it, rather than as the artist expects their audience to experience it. (An analogy: the "default", pre-choice-of-audience way to reproduce a painting shouldn't involve a frame and gallery wall, but rather should involve the painting standing alone as a canvas on an easel in a room in the same lighting conditions it was painted in.)

Re: Amazon's Fake Review Problem

#249

Post by Nition »

tintar wrote: post #188
pilsetnieks wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My previous Sennheisers broke (just the headband) after a couple of years Let me guess, HD280 Pro? It seems they've fixed that for HD380s.

right? I have a HD280 from ~12 years ago? the headband started to disintegrate maybe 5 years ago but it's still quite usable at home and the sound and comfort is still as wonderful. bought a 2nd pair maybe 5+ years ago when it was discounted at literally half-price, so that's the one that gets taken outside on field-trips.

Joining this bandwagon. The headband on mine just sort of started to disintegrate into a weird sticky mess after 2-3 years. Then someone pulled them open too hard and cracked the plastic. Mine are from 2004, still working perfectly, but the whole headband area is now pretty much duct tape and glue.

Re: Amazon's Fake Review Problem

#250

Post by LV-426 »

jacek wrote: post #39

The fake review problem on Amazon is much bigger than people think. Here are my two anecdotes: 1. I got bluetooth headphones on amazon (~$65). They had great reviews, but were very disappointing. I returned them and gave 2 star review. Representative from the manufacturer contacted me and offered me a pair for free. After I got them, they asked for positive review. I refused. That manipulation technique wasn't enough…

> offered me a pair for free. After I got them, they asked for positive review. I refused.

So they were "very disappointing", but not "very disappointing" enough to refuse a free pair, at their expense?

> That manipulation technique

Perhaps, since you were happy to accept the headphones, they believed your original negative review was not sincere, but itself a manipulation technique to get a freebie or special offer in return for a more positive review. (Which I suspect is not unheard-of for some buyers on Amazon.)

To be clear: Although I don't know you I don't believe that is what you did (most people don't do that), what I mean is the company may be used to some people trying that kind of thing, and accepting the product for free may be a hint that you're willing to do what they asked.

However, what kind of "positive review" did they want? A review where you pretend not to be disappointed, or simply an update to your review stating something like: "while I don't believe these are worth $65, and returned them, I can't fault the customer service in trying to make up for my disappointment"?

Because I don't see anything at all wrong with the latter; and it's certainly more reasonable than leaving a negative review of a product which you were happy to accept at the 'right price'.

Post reply on HN