Many users have requested for some time a way to review other users, and to read reviews posted by people while they search for matches. This is a tricky thing to find and implement in a way that doesn't just become a battleground, or give room for people to post all kinds of fake reviews.

One of the top developers for the CMS platform we use has finally integrated their review system with user profiles, and several of the women here asked if they could start a fundraising campaign to raise the $200 needed to purchase it. The campaign is up on the Support Us page.

How it would work
Some of this is still in rough draft format, so please feel free to contribute ideas.

-All reviews would be moderated by the moderator team prior to being posted

-Reviews would only be accepted from people who have directly dealt with the person they are reviewing as a donor or recipient. Recipient to recipient reviews or donor to donor reviews would not be posted.

-Reviews would consist of several questions, like a user feedback survey, and only constructive reviews would be allowed. Only one review per user on any other user would be allowed.

-The person being reviewed would have the opportunity to respond. Only constructive responses would be allowed, and only one response per review.

-Moderators would have to take care to vet out potential fake reviews; i.e. donors who create fake recipient profiles just to post good reviews for themselves. This may require some kind of minimum user point level before a review would be accepted, meaning the user has to be active and present for a while first.

A link to the support page and to a demo of the system available are below.

I welcome any other thoughts. I reserve the right to make the final decision on how this would work. :)
Friday, July 13 2012, 10:36 PM
Share this post:

Accepted Answer

Thursday, July 19 2012, 11:36 AM - #Permalink
Resolved
1 votes
OK - Here we go! You guys did it, you raised the funds for this component - GREAT JOB to the ladies who drove this!

I've purchased the component and am installing it in the test site. It's a hefty one and will take me some time to get working, so please be patient with me :)
  • ybforz
    more than a month ago
    Look forward to it! Thanks for all of your hard work @BethG!
  • muggles
    more than a month ago
    yay!!!!
The reply is currently minimized Show
Responses (21)
  • Accepted Answer

    Friday, July 13 2012, 11:12 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    This sounds like a great idea, Beth, and I think the usage restrictions you've described should limit the potential for abuse. It'll be great to see it up and running!

    I'd like to ask about something you said above: "Reviews would only be accepted from people who have directly dealt with the person they are reviewing as a donor or recipient."

    What does "directly dealt with" mean? Do you mean donor-recipient matched pairs, or would you permit reviews between any donor and recipient who have interacted via private message or something?

    Also, if only constructive comments are allowed, would there be no opportunity to provide a negative review for a donor or recipient who behaved badly? Or would you count on the lack of positive comments to tell that story?

    YVR
    Like
    1
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      There will have to be some meaningful interaction to warrant a review. We don't want a lot of "this person never responded to my emails" reviews, this is not meaningful interaction and there is no obligation to respond to emails. But if the two people were talking back and forth for a while, or had agreed to meet, etc and then the other person dropped off the face of the earth, that might warrant a review comment.

      Don't confuse constructive with "positive." :) Constructive just means saying something like "this person didn't show up to our agreed meeting and then never returned any calls." instead of "this guy is selfish two-faced a-hole and I hope he rots in hell."

      The rules around this are still something we'll have to work on defining less subjectively, and this kind of conversation will help!
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Saturday, July 14 2012, 07:21 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    Great idea Beth, thanks for taking the time to explain how the proposed system could work. I like what's been proposed, and I agree with YVR that it will limit abuse.

    1) Will reviewers have the option of remaining publicly anonymous? I know that some recipients may be hesitant of broadcasting who their donor is, but would still like to provide a review. Admins/mods/person being reviewed would know, but the recip's name isn't listed on the review.

    2) I'm interested in hearing more about the minimum requirements to submit a review. I've had a couple of recipients who've had virtually no activity on the site, but may be interested in providing a review. They wouldn't qualify on the points system, but their accounts are somewhat old. But, if it's only based on account age, then there's nothing stopping someone creating 10 accounts right now and submitting reviews in the future.

    3) As more of a discussion point, I wonder if the review system may lead to a consolidation of available donors. I.e., new donors will find it hard to find willing recipients when there's say a 10-review, 4.8-star donor in the same city. This is not a criticism, just something I wonder about.

    AC.
    Like
    2
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      1) yes, this is something that is important. I'm not sure exactly what it will look like yet though. The tricky part is that the review cannot be anonymous to the administrators, or we wouldn't be able to validate it, but it needs to be able to be anonymous to the person being reviewed and the people reading the reviews.

      2) This is the part of a review system that is darn near impossible to manage. People, especially high-number, extremely competitive donors, will be highly motivated to scam the system and build up as many fake reviews as possible. There will also be those who are highly motivated to use the same fake accounts to post bad reviews for other donors. In order to get this very helpful feature that almost EVERY recipient wants, it will mean us taking on a moderation nightmare with the donors.

      3) While I can see the fear behind this, I think there are an equal (or greater) number of women who specifically do not want a donor who has 30+ kids out there and has been spreading himself all over creation. I am one of those women, and I hear this many, many times from others. I think it will more likely be the negative reviews that will effect donors than anything else. But as there are so many poor experiences that women report, I am hoping the reviews will give some motivation to those few donors who don't have it otherwise to stop being jerks, if for no other reason than to not get bad reviews. Same goes for recipients who seem to think it's ok to crap all over the donors. They'll find themselves without a lot of options if they have some negative feedback - other donors will be more careful.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Saturday, July 14 2012, 08:39 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    I don't know, I still see a potential for abuse, or if not abuse at least having the review system be misleading. If only positive reviews (which is how I read 'constructive') are included then the only real evidence a recipient has of rather a donor is 'good' is how many reviews he has. Donors that donate very frequently (perhaps too frequently) would inevitable have more positive reviews, even if not a great donor, just by virtue of numbers; and thus would look 'better' then donors who choose to donate less frequently. Likewise donors who push recipients to post reviews on success will have more positive reviews then donors who let recipients decide rather or not to add a review.

    The limitation to only positive reviews would present an artificial limitation which could make the reviews misleading and I feel greatly limit the usefulness of such a system. I think a certain level of negative reviews, so long as posted in a way to provide details on why the review is negative in a constructive manner and not just ranting/name calling, should be allowed. This way donors who donate more frequently wouldn't get an 'unfair advantage' and bad donors won't be able to get away with causing difficulty for women without fear for repercussions since the worst that will happen is that they won't receive a positive review.

    I admit it's difficult to allow negative comments without it becoming a battle field, but if we set very strict rules for what sort of negative comments are allowed (only ones that are useful to other recips, no name calling etc) and moderate heavily I think it can be done safely and would be more useful.

    In a semi related note perhaps one of the questios should be "did your donor request that you post this review" or something like that. I know some donors were more forceful in getting 'positive' reviews there recipients on the last site, and I don't want that to lead to slanted results. having some indication of which donors pushed to get positive reviews may help a little, possible. Not as certain about this suggestion though :)
    Like
    2
    • aussiecanadian
      more than a month ago
      On your last point, what of recipients who have finished and aren't interactive with KDR any more? The only way they'd know they could leave a review is if they were asked/notified.
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      Unfortunately you misread "constructive," the definition of which is "Serving a useful purpose." This does not mean positive, that would not serve the useful purpose of a review system.

      Constructive: "This donor did not show up to our meeting, and never returned calls."
      Not constructive: "This donor is a grade A *******, stay away!"
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      I might also add, that we will face the same issues EVERY review system faces - people tend to only be motivated to leave a review when they had a negative experience. Donors will, indeed, need to be active in garnering positive reviews for themselves, just as authors are on Amazon, musicians are on iTunes, and businesses are on Facebook. Donors who donate to hundreds and hundreds of women will have more reviews, but their high level of activity will also be much more visible. This is not attractive to a lot of women. I would hazard to say the majority of women would prefer a more selective donor.
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      Donors may wish to reach out to those recipients and let them know they can leave a review.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    ToddD
    ToddD
    Offline
    Saturday, July 14 2012, 09:39 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    I think if a donor is doing more donations and doing them well, he should be getting more positive reviews. Logic would dictate that. Obviously, he still has to be doing good, ie showing up on time, being courteous and respectful, to generate such good reviews in the first place. Sheer numbers does not a positive review make. It is how the donor interacts with the recipient, not the number of recipients he helps, that creates these good reviews. A donor going out of his way for his recipient is certain to generate rave reviews, instead of a donor being far less benevolent.

    Naturally, a success story will generate the most positive reviews---as it should. This does not mean that the particular donor is a fit for everybody. But it just gives a potential recipient some more facts along the way in her TTC journey. Everybody is entitled to make their own minds up. Reviews help, but they are not necessarily a deciding factor. Just that they impart some information that may aid a donor or recipient. Critics have panned movies, but they still brought in audiences...or became cult classics.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Saturday, July 14 2012, 09:56 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    I think that some Donors aren't putting enough faith into recips / couples on here. You guys are all worried about abuse and bad reviews. Maybe you have something you'd like to avoid being said? Everyone is going to have a different reaction or relationship with their donor or recip, that's human nature, but I know so many women who are smart enough to figure out for themselves which reviews will help them and which will not. We are smart believe it or not! (not that you implied otherwise). This could be a great way to stave off abuse, especially going through Beth and the Admins! I am looking forward to this new feature (hopefully) becoming a reality! Even a $5 donation from anyone, heck $1 would bring us closer to our goal :D
    Like
    1
    • aussiecanadian
      more than a month ago
      Our caution does not imply fear of negative recipient reviews. Rather, this system is primarily designed to review donors, as a means to assist recipients. That's great, good donors want this as much as recipients. However, such a system means it's the donors who are on the receiving end if it's not implemented with sufficient safeguards; that is why donors are asking the questions. If a recipient gets a bad review, she can just leave, starts a new account, a find a new donor, nothing lost. That is not the case for donors, who like ebay sellers, depend on their reputation.
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      The risk of abuse in this, from my direct and persistent experience, is more from donors to other donors than it is with recipients. The women generally want a true reflection of the donor, whereas the donors tend to be extremely concerned with how they measure up against other donors. It's natural, I understand, but the worst mischief we have encountered is between the guys.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Saturday, July 14 2012, 12:41 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    I like all of these ideas except for one: anonymous reviews. It will be a bit confusing for a user when someone submits a good review and the person cannot even tell who was satisfied with either the donor or recipient experience. I personally would be quite happy with a positive review but would really like to know the person applauding my efforts :)

    Also, someone cannot properly respond to a negative review without knowing who is submitting it. Surely people should know who is accusing them, as this is regarded as basic human right in most countries lol. Many people are going to receive negative reviews for tacky things if anonymous reviews are allowed. For example, if I wrote a constructive review about a recipient that was also wildly inaccurate, the recipient would need to know which donor was submitting the review so that she could respond appropriately from her own viewpoint and provide supporting documentation if necessary.

    Usernames should be attached to all reviews :)
    Like
    1
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      We have to allow for anonymity, especially with negative reviews, because many women are afraid of repercussions from the donor. Unfortunately this has proven a rightful fear on too many occasions, whether it be the donor simply spamming the recipient and harassing her to change her comments or take them down, to outright war between a donor and recipient waged on the site. Just remember, this is a private website, not a courtroom. There is no "right to face your accuser," but there will be a right to dispute a bad review and submit it to the moderators for consideration.

      Like I said, in order to give women this extremely commonly asked for feature, we are taking on a moderation *nightmare.*
    • siempre_madridista
      more than a month ago
      Well, to each their own. I made my post about users in general but I'm not sure why you chose to make yours all about recipients. As I understand, donors and recipients can both review each other :)

      But there should be an option for reviews to be non-anonymous (and these should carry more weight). How is a donor supposed to gain credibility with a bunch of random words of which their origin is unknown? Seeing a bunch of positive reviews without usernames is going to have a lot less effect. It's like going to a website and seeing quotes from sources praising the business. Well...from what source are these quotes?

      If the point is to build donor credibility, then it's quite obvious than non-anonymous reviews should be allowed and encouraged.
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      Anonymous reviews would only be an option, I would hope most would simply be normal reviews from another KDR user.

      You asked a question dear, and the answer has to do with recipients. It's not meant to be biased, it's just the facts of what I deal with moderating this community. I am sure there is the odd donor who would be more comfortable with an anonymous review, given a similar circumstance. Women are certainly not exempt from being unreasonable.
    • siempre_madridista
      more than a month ago
      I never asked a question. You simply chose to respond to my idea :)

      But you never presented an idea of how donors or recipients will deal with an inaccurate review when they don't know who is making the accusation :D


      Example:

      "Anonymous says that you are an abusive recipient and refused to pay for expenses that were agreed upon before the donation."

      "Which donor said this?"

      "Uh...we’ll just call him Donor X."

      "Well, I can't accurately respond to these wild claims if I don't know who is making the accusation."
    • aussiecanadian
      more than a month ago
      I don't like the idea of anonymous reviews either, though I understand why it's asked for. It makes it very hard or impossible for a donor to refute the claims. I understand that an admin can check contact has occurred, but most or all of donor-recip interaction proceeds on email after KDR. Particularly after Beth mentioned donor-donor shenanigans, how can a donor provide evidence to counter false/spam reviews?
    • magir292
      more than a month ago
      A lot of this will be on the admins' shoulders, really. They are going to take on a crap load of work to make it all happen. It's not risks free, things will be adjusted as they go along... I do understand some of the concerns expressed though. It might not be a smooth ride, there'll be a few bumps, but hopefully, it will help sorting out the good and not so good donors, and in the end, it should benefit everyone... except the not so good donors.
    • aussiecanadian
      more than a month ago
      I think the problem though is that this is a system designed by recipients, for recipients, moderated by recipients. I just don't like that kind of bias when it comes to the crunch of 'he said she said' bs that will come up.
    • magir292
      more than a month ago
      Well... I'm fairly sure there's at least one donor mod, and ml, being the other admin, is also a donor... I can't tell for sure but I doubt BethG will take this on without any kind of help. Of course, only she can actually put you at ease on that matter.

      It may sound like it is mostly for recipients, and I think that is partly because the recips are the ones finding there is an actual need for it. The thing is usually, recipients come and go, and with their leaving, they take a lot of knowledge and information they may have found out about donors, both good and bad. That is valuable info. It may not be the sole deciding factor when you are looking for a donor, but I certainly was appreciative of recipients coming to me to warn me about certain donors when I first joined. I was also thankful when a recipient would come forward with a positive experience and confirm that I was on the right path.

      I'd rather see it all happen out in the open, with people reviewing and making sure the information is relevant. On top of it, with an actual review system, donors will get to know what is said about them and respond, whereas when it happens behind the scenes and privately, that's not as easy an option.
    • siempre_madridista
      more than a month ago
      I think people are still missing two key points about the review system:

      1. Bad recipients are going to get "outed" as well (and believe me, there are lots of them)
      2. There won't be a way to accurately moderate accusations that are anonymous if the person being accused doesn't know who is making the accusation (it could be either a donor or a recipient)
    • aussiecanadian
      more than a month ago
      @siempre - I agree with point 2, but not point 1. Donors have no incentive to leave anything other than a glowing review for a recipient. Why risk a negative retaliatory review? As I've said, the consequences of a bad review for a recipient are zero; they will simply create a new account. Recipients do not rely on reputation to find a donor. Donors don't consult other donors about recipients' reputations, at least not that I'm aware of. In contrast, donors rely on their reputation built up over months.
    • magir292
      more than a month ago
      For having seen chat logs of donors requesting info about me or talking about me as a person and how they'd "stay away" from a recipient like me, there are donors who consult one another. There could be issues raising from a bad review coming from donors... Your donor could decide to step away or back out all of sudden, putting you back at square one on your search. Considering finding a suitable and willing donor is the most difficult step of this process, it's certainly a risk.
    • siempre_madridista
      more than a month ago
      @Magir: That's the whole point of the review system: to alert other users of sketchy donors and bad recipients. Just like women run into donors that use abusive language, make sexual comments and don't show to appointments, donors also encounter women that are unfit for motherhood (welfare recipients and heavy smokers), women who don't pay expenses that were agreed to (they somehow don't have enough money to pay for gas the day of the insemination), women who constantly cancel appointments at the very last minute (4 months in a row…and she keeps getting her stories confused), and women who *phish* for personal information ("I need your Social Security number for a background check but I'm not going to even tell you my name"). Just like a recipient will more than likely step away from a bad donor because of the reviews, a donor can also step away from the bad recipients based on reviews. A donor isn’t going to step away from a good recipient (as she isn’t going to have any negative reviews anyway). In the end, the system will help to eliminate many of the bad users on this website, both male and female :)
    • magir292
      more than a month ago
      Um... I know, that was exactly my point. Donors do it and will also benefit from it. I was responding to aussie's comment, letting him know that it does happen (donors speaking to one another about recipients) and there also could be consequences for the women who get bad reviews. So it's not just for recipients, nor against donors.
    • siempre_madridista
      more than a month ago
      Donors talk about recipients at 1/1000th of the rate that recipients talk about donors lol. It would be laughable to think that donors as much about this as recipients.

      But they won't technically be back to "square one" as they can simply create another profile (just like a bad buyer can do on eBay). They would still retain all the information on the donors. But the review system will expose names, email addresses and/or phone numbers of bad recipients. Donors will have a hard time creating a second profile as their reputation will have to start over.
    • magir292
      more than a month ago
      Bad sellers can also create new accounts on ebay and start over... just like a donor could (ie: tpnelson). Because there might be less talk about recips amongst donors, doesn't mean it's not happening. I'm not trying to say donors are worse off or recips are worse off, but it could benefit (and harm) both parties. Important is to at least give it a shot, if it's a complete failure, they'll reconsider their options. But can't know until you try.
    Load more comments
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Saturday, July 14 2012, 01:07 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    I imagine we will have to institute a new rule as well - retaliating against someone in response to a negative review would result in a ban from the site.
    Like
    3
    • aussiecanadian
      more than a month ago
      Again, what if someone has an axe to grind and just lies? It would be the most effective and childish way to retaliate against someone who annoyed you on the forums :(
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      Yep. We will have to have some pretty good rules around what gets through, and a way for people to respond to negative reviews. It's going to be challenging.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Sunday, July 15 2012, 12:27 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    Why does everyone assume everyone else is going to lie???
    • siempre_madridista
      more than a month ago
      "Everybody lies." -- Dr. Gregory House
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      House lied: the dead do not lie.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Monday, July 16 2012, 12:21 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    Until we see this new system operating, and give it some time to generate some useful data, it's pointless to speculate about what might happen. I tend to think that with rational human beings keeping an eye on what gets posted, the tool will do a lot more good than harm. If the rules need to change later on, that can be done in response to a specific situation, and not based on fears about what might happen.

    It won't be perfect, but it should be much better than the behind-the-scenes discussion that magir mentioned is what's happening now. I hope we can all agree on that.

    "Knowledge is power" - Sir Francis bacon
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Monday, July 16 2012, 04:22 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    Folks - remember that reviews are NOT all negative! :)

    Anonymous Reviews - I know that this one is causing some heartburn, especially for donors. Consider this though - many (most) donor/recipient pairs have a confidentiality agreement; it is only the very few that publicly announce who their donor/recipient is on the site. So, if a recipient wants to let the world know that her donor is AWESOME, but doesn't want to be public about who she is or who her donor is, she needs a way to do that. I am one of those women - I would LOVE a way to let other women know that our donors is fabulous without violating our agreement to not divulge each other's identities.

    I think with solid moderation a review system will work, and work well. It will be a learning process, that is for sure, and we will have to work on the rules as we go a bit.
    Like
    1
    • aussiecanadian
      more than a month ago
      That's a gray line, does an anonymous internet user handle equate to a real-life identity? I don't have the legal background to answer that, but I can understand your hesitation. However, unless there is the option for reviewers to remain anonymous to the moderators handling their review, then that legal line has been crossed. Moderators will know who submitted the review, and who is the reviewee.

      As such, I don't see why the system I proposed can't be implemented: the reviewer can remain publicly anonymous, but known to the reviewee and moderators, so as to allow the reviewee to defend against any claims made by the reviewer.
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      The user identity of both will definitely have to be known to the moderators, that is true. The rest will probably have to be handled on a case by case basis, depending on the nature of the review. The review system absolutely can not become a venue for "reporting" violations of the terms of use, or poor behavior. We will have to be diligent to ensure that those matters are handled through the same channels they are handled now.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Monday, July 16 2012, 04:54 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    Now donate, people!!
    Like
    2
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      you guys are almost halfway there! It only takes a few people at $5-10 a piece, that's NOTHING.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    ToddD
    ToddD
    Offline
    Monday, July 16 2012, 05:23 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    Donor/Recipient reviews, in theory is a good thing. I don't expect any donor to be retaliatory against a bad review. The thing is to keep mud-slinging and gross negativity to a minimum. Saying the donor (or recipient) is 'ugly', 'fat', 'gross', 'stupid'--or anything in that genre should be kept out. Unsubstantiated allegations or machinations should not be permitted under any circumstances.

    I am all for an open system--that isn't secret or stealth. There are many advantages to this review system for all. Like BethG said, not all reviews are negative. But it is how a negative review is phrased by the reviewer, reviewed by the admins and mods and ultimately presented that counts in the end. Good reviews can help all involved in the process. Finding a middle ground that gives a more realistic overview of donors and recipients---and not retaliatory to begin with--helps all make up their own mind.

    Recipients or donors should not use the system to dictate to others who is best for them. But giving them enough info, impartially, with some adept moderation, can provide a fair and balanced donor and recipient review system (the emphasis being on both groups, not one).
    Like
    2
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Monday, July 16 2012, 05:49 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    I can't wait until we get to $200!!! :) :) :)
    Like
    3
    • ybforz
      more than a month ago
      so make a contribution everyone! Put your money where your mouth is! :D
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      hey mr moneybags if u have money to burn give me some $$$ cha ching
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Monday, July 16 2012, 06:52 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    Not that I think you can do anything about it, but is it really going to be possible to do an anonymous comment? I mean if a donor sees a review that sayas "so-and-so was suppose to show up and didn't" unless he makes a regular habit of standing up all his recipients he will probably know exactly who posted the review.

    Perhaps (if the system you find allows from a technical standpoint) we should allow the poster of a review to decide if they want their review to be anonymous or not? Perhaps a recipient could even have the option of checking a box saying "if you wish to ask me further questions about my experience you may contact me"? that way if someone has a really good experience (or perhaps a really bad one, though hopefully more of the former then the latter) they can be available to explain in detail about their experience.

    I assume by constructive we would expect more then "I used him, I got pregnant" for the post to be accepted?
    Like
    1
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      A lot of this will depend on the finer aspects of this particular review component. Whether it has an easy method to allow the reviewer to hide their name, I do not know. If it doesn't, we will have all user names show by default and come up with some way for people to submit "anonymous" reviews directly to the moderation team instead to be posted by us upon our satisfaction of their legitimacy and appropriateness.

      Either way, to be known or anonymous will be an option.

      And no, that's not what constructive means. Constructive means, again, "serving a useful purpose." The same exact statement can be said in a constructive way, or not. This will be a subjective judgement the moderators will have to make.

      One way I plan on getting around this is to provide the majority of the review as a series of questions where the person is rated on a scale. Instead of "this lady was a jerk," the reviewer would simply give her one out of five stars for something like "easy to work with." We'll have to come up with what aspects people want to review.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Monday, July 16 2012, 07:08 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    In order to raise enough money for hosting and other website expenses, why not charge $5 per review submitted? That would keep out of riff raff reviews and help to generate money for the website at the same time. It would be an easy way to kill two birds with one stone! :D
    Like
    1
    • aussiecanadian
      more than a month ago
      I think that could reduce the number of reviews that are submitted. It's very hard to monetise a free service. I'm sure Beth would have the numbers, but probably 90-95% of kdr users use it without contributing. Anyway, since FSDR changed its name to KDR, Beth may have other revenue plans for the future.
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      That is a good idea. If there is a charge for reviews, and the charges pay for the review system, it would be a self-licking icecream cone.
    • magir292
      more than a month ago
      The review system's paid for.
    • siempre_madridista
      more than a month ago
      "In order to raise enough money for hosting and other website expenses..."

      I know the review system has raised the required $200 lol. As of now, KDR only has $276 out of $3000 needed for annual operating costs. The revenues generated from the review system could help raise money for these costs.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    ToddD
    ToddD
    Offline
    Monday, July 16 2012, 07:18 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    I second the motion on the idea of charging five bucks per review.
    Like
    2
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    ToddD
    ToddD
    Offline
    Monday, July 16 2012, 07:52 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    Keeping personal attacks out of reviews benefits all. Hence the need for good moderation, instead of somebody trying to get even, or seeking to be spiteful or vengeful. I would also add that anybody who tries to slander another, via unsubstantiated allegations and machinations in such a review, should at the very least suspended from the site. The review system should be fair, not used to further anybody's agenda--be them donor or recipient.

    The Review System can work. There is a need for a fair and balanced system, that no doubt will be tweaked and improved upon in time during the history of our site.
    Like
    2
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, July 17 2012, 04:32 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    I don't think there should be a fee for this service. Why a fee for this specifically? We're already raising funds to make it happen.

    There will be moderation, it's been said times and times over. I'm sure they are capable of judgement, and won't go ahead with posting a review if it's vicious or irrelevant. There might be a need to establish in advance what is and what isn't but that should really be up to the ones who'll moderate.
    Like
    1
    • aussiecanadian
      more than a month ago
      Will we know who the moderators are? Can we ask not to be moderated by particular individuals?
    • magir292
      more than a month ago
      Maybe it'd be best if all reviews ended up being moderated by all the moderators involved, to be fair?

      I don't have an answer, though. I wonder if they'd disclose the moderator's names. Part of me thinks they should, part of me thinks not, so they don't get any type of harassment because of it. ie: Why'd you not publish my review? Has someone made a bad review about me? Yadda yadda...
    • aussiecanadian
      more than a month ago
      I like that idea, if it's logistically feasible. Donors and recips have been on this site for a long time, and no doubt there are personal histories that may colour their perceptions when dealing with negative reviews.
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      The moderation team has never been a secret. There won't be any way for people to know who moderated a review, but I think it's safe to say that anyone on the moderation team would likely leave any that fall in the grey area to Mark or I to deal with directly. Our moderators are a good bunch.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    muggles
    muggles
    Offline
    Tuesday, July 17 2012, 10:21 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    Reading all of this is all making my head hurt, I can't imagine Beth's headache thinking all of this through. ;)
    • BethG
      more than a month ago
      I can. :) Yeah, it's going to be a pain in the a$$, but I hope worth it in the end. I have a couple of good examples to use as role models, and a lot will depend on a well trained moderation team to help.

      As with everything new, there will be a learning curve. We'll get there.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    ToddD
    ToddD
    Offline
    Tuesday, July 17 2012, 10:54 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    I am all for this. i just want to see a system where somebody is not out to get somebody and tries to use the review System to publically disparage or slander that person (be them donor or recipient). Keeping it business-like, non-attacking, non-unsubstantiated is imperative. Nevertheless, a review system is a good idea, and I do support it. It is up to each individual to make up their own mind about anybody they use. A review system may play a pivotal role in deciding this..it may not. Critics have panned movies and they've gone on to do very well.

    I rarely listen to movie reviews anyways. I try and make up my own mind, rather than having a failed Hollywood director or writer tell me. The review system coming into fruition here is in principle a very good concept. In time, it may play an integral part to this site...or at least another factor in deciding. The thing is to have that factor well-balanced and fair.
    Like
    1
    The reply is currently minimized Show
Your Reply

KDR Community

Statistics
Total Members: 17263
Total Groups: 68
Total Photos: 14904
Total Videos: 140

Support KDR

Please consider supporting our mission

Find us on