Post AqrH8CipNvJn2fpuF6 by ahoyboyhoy@fosstodon.org
(DIR) More posts by ahoyboyhoy@fosstodon.org
(DIR) Post #AqrB1QEi8pRhCh8Fu4 by jimsalter@fosstodon.org
2025-02-06T23:15:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I am really, really sick of the algorithmic creep. Everybody knows that Facebook, Twitter, and so forth heavily modify which posts you see when, for inscrutable reasons that have nothing to do with when a post was made or how many other people liked it.But did you know Amazon does it too?Left: my review of a product, with custom demo video, marked helpful by 990 people.Right: the "top review," text only, marked helpful by 81 people.Both reviews are glowing. Why is that one the "top"?
(DIR) Post #AqrBGp2KDVyySpgLgW by jimsalter@fosstodon.org
2025-02-06T23:18:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
If you sort by "Top Review" and view all reviews, mine is buried beneath I'm not sure HOW many pages of other reviews--both newer AND older than mine--most of which have been marked helpful by fewer than FIVE people. The vast majority are also text-only, and not particularly informative.So what, then, makes a "top review?"
(DIR) Post #AqrBNGMJXu3CwN6Rjk by jimsalter@fosstodon.org
2025-02-06T23:19:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
If you want to see this in practice, here's the product listing: https://www.amazon.com/Brondell-GS-70-Portable-Convenient-Capacity/dp/B008CSDKSQAnd here's a deeplink to my review, which I suspect you'll NEED if you actually want to see it: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2AVO1AO63GSOQ?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp
(DIR) Post #AqrBVaR6maU3WfJYqe by jimsalter@fosstodon.org
2025-02-06T23:20:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@paperdigits nope. but I linked to the review further down the thread, if you want to double check.
(DIR) Post #AqrCkLoNXToQSxnqKm by pertho@mastodon.bsd.cafe
2025-02-06T23:34:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jimsalter oof.. man... Yeah you're in their silo, you're bound by their rules. Doesn't make it any easier. It does suck!!
(DIR) Post #AqrFg6YkbU9bro9z0K by spineless_echidna@infosec.exchange
2025-02-07T00:07:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jimsalter I can't say I'm surprised, given what Amazon chooses to show you when you search for a specific product. The question is, is this deliberate or just incompetent?
(DIR) Post #AqrFkTk8LjHavaZOs4 by jimsalter@fosstodon.org
2025-02-07T00:08:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
To be clear, y'all, this is not me being upset because it's hard to find my review of a ten dollar bunghole washer.This is me being upset because this manipulation makes it MUCH harder to find reviews written by competent adults who give a shit, despite those reviews EXISTING.Without being able to read competent, genuine reviews, you're left with nothing but ridiculous "everything is four stars and up" numeric bullshit.Amazon is LITTERED with outright garbage marked 4.8 stars.
(DIR) Post #AqrFu2l1XJLS84Xz5U by jimsalter@fosstodon.org
2025-02-07T00:09:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@spineless_echidna you're not the only one to suggest incompetence rather than malice, but that raises another question: why everybody is willing to believe that Zuck and Musk are deliberately using algorithmic manipulation against consumer's best interests (which they absolutely, inarguably are), but for some reason think Bezos is above it when the same thing is clearly happening there?
(DIR) Post #AqrGXgTdnFwObxJoFU by spineless_echidna@infosec.exchange
2025-02-07T00:17:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jimsalter I personally think that a company the size of Amazon has no excuse for incompetence. It's easier to see how they prefer you to see some reviews than others, and harder to see a motive for them showing you pages and pages of wrong results when you search for an item, but I suspect if you scratched a little bit you'd see that all the listed items above what you searched for have higher profit margins...
(DIR) Post #AqrH8CipNvJn2fpuF6 by ahoyboyhoy@fosstodon.org
2025-02-07T00:23:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jimsalter I'm shocked
(DIR) Post #AqrHCMsfYaUPhuQPOy by jimsalter@fosstodon.org
2025-02-07T00:24:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@spineless_echidna we already know that Amazon has been caught prioritizing their own copycat products over an original that a third party has been selling on its platform successfully.That's one possiblity, but I don't think that's it. My personal suspicion is they don't LIKE people reading reviews looking for clues, and prefer everybody to believe the bot-dominated "everything is 4.2 stars and up" numeric shit, and just buy and hope for the best.
(DIR) Post #AqrHI9b1rSgsF9vtFQ by jimsalter@fosstodon.org
2025-02-07T00:25:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@spineless_echidna If you stop and think about it, even GLOWING, well-written reviews would be a danger to that goal, because savvy consumers would still not buy a product which has no competently-written reviews--so a competently written review might sell one good product, while costing sales on ten terrible ones.
(DIR) Post #AqrHQ1sGSIREbvkXrc by jimsalter@fosstodon.org
2025-02-07T00:26:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ahoyboyhoy let me guess...
(DIR) Post #AqrHfTXprLK8lzYl1c by ahoyboyhoy@fosstodon.org
2025-02-07T00:29:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jimsalter you've got me!
(DIR) Post #AqsfxNh4wZUJtguj6O by jimsalter@fosstodon.org
2025-02-07T16:36:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mikhailbot the same thing happens to essentially all reviews, even text only ones, not just reviews by me personally. Actually *look* at several pages of reviews, sorted by "top", on ANY popular product and you'll immediately see that "top" has no direct relevance to newness, number of times marked helpful, or anything else. Including a photo or video MAY get a review a spot in the top bar, but the top bar isn't always here, and doesn't always have BOTH photos AND videos. So, WHY?
(DIR) Post #Aqsg9zrkqWg7lFvIJM by jimsalter@fosstodon.org
2025-02-07T16:38:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@michaelgalassi it was much more highly placed for the first like six months after I placed it, then it got buried. I think it got about 200 of those 900 reviews in that first six month period; the rest have slowly accumulated over the remaining years.