Talk:Review site

message: The most famous and oldest professional (but non-commercial) review site is Consumer Reports. Please include a link to that WP page. Also mention that Consumer Reports has many inspired the creation of many other consumer organizations across the world, each with its own publications: Which? (UK), Choice (Australia), Que Choisir (France), Test-Achats (Belgium), Stiftung Warentest (Germany), and many others. The complete list is found at the International Consumer Research and Testing website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich S 10001 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Consumer organizations

message: With regard to professional review sites (such as CNET) some more detail about the business models would be useful.  Do these site pay for the merchandise they review, is it sent by the manufacturer, etc.?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.173.203 (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Business models

message: I changed "10" ratings to be accurate to "100" because that is what it says on the website cited.  I think it was a typo.
Hammer v. Amazon.com is an example of a lawsuit over a review site.
No mention of algorithms used to calculate ratings?  Sites that try to actually be accurate? — Omegatron 18:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo

message: I've created a new kind of review site based on mediawiki that you might find interesting:
You can find it at this link.
What do you guys think?
I haven't seen anything like this before so I pretty much went and set a site up.  I could always use expert advice.  I'm trying to address the issue of commercial bias by providing an open document format where consumers and companies have equal say in the review content.
The way I see it the reviews will be the result of an ongoing discussion, containing structured information representing the viewpoints of the participants...  Kind of like wikipedia for commercial products and services.202.72.171.153 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki review site

message: I was surprised to see that my edits from Feb 15 were deleted, and even more surprisingly marked as "vandalism."
The fact that operators of reviews sites are concerned about rising criticism is certainly relevant to this article, and was supported by a citation from the "USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review," a very credible source.
The external link to an industry trade association that provides consumer, business, and legal information regarding review sites is very relevant to the article and would be of interest to anyone researching this subject.  (That is the purpose of wikipedia, isn't it?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wygk (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating and Review professional association 

message: An anonymous editor (with no other articles edited under that IP) has made some useful contributions and clean-up, but in the process managed to add five or six references to the marginally notable (and unheard of on wikipedia) site viewpoints.com.  That new service may or may not be notable enough for its own article - there is some real press, and they are in the A round stage with a real VC company.  Such start-ups, if they don't completely flop, usually get enough interest, success, and press to be notable here soon after funding.  But it's hardly worth that many mentions in an article devoted to an encyclopedic treatment of the subject of review sites.  If we mention viewpoints five times we have about a hundred other websites that also deserve five mentions each....  It looks a little like COI or spam but I can't assume that.  Sometimes people just come across something that's really cool or new and decide to add it all over an article.  But let's keep things in balance, okay?  Wikidemo (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review spam 

message: Killed the list of "Key" review sites.  The article history shows that since the creation of this article, that particular section has been nothing but a spam trap.  More of Wiki concern, it is basically a miscellaneous list and does not provide value or add to the encyclopedic nature of the article.
Please drop other thoughts and suggestions here. 05:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's indeed one of the important early review sites. I've added a source for that. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing & Cleanup in progress 

message: We created CaseTree.com  A free site developed for consumers and businesses to provide real reviews of companies in accordance to actual lawsuits. No more fake online reviews, unknown posts, or reviews done by paid PR sites that provide a useless rating systems based on what they see fit without having any experience with that entity, and eliminating fake reviews based on "monthly" PAID memberships. What other review sites fail to provide, CaseTree.com does.
CaseTree.com is the best way to find real consumer reviews based on lawsuits.
For example:
DARRYL R DONLEY v. THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY 
DINERSTEIN VS. MICROSOFT 
BOKHARI MIR v. PAYPAL, Inc
Worrall Vs Care.Com, Inc.
K. Oliver Vs Youtube, LLC
Dan W Welch Inc vs. Wells Fargo Bank
www.CaseTree.com
and much more...
We have also developed a star rating called "Lawsuit Stars"; allow the consumer to rate their experience with the defendant/business in accordance to the outcome of the case. (1) CaseTree.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.231.61 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CaseTree.com  - Consumer review site based backed by real lawsuits. 

message: Pretty much any and all review sites are rating sites - functions of "write a review" and "leave a star rating" tend to be meshed together. The distinction becomes meaningless as soon as a review includes some form of rating, and some places periodically switch back and forth from one format to another. PS. I also wonder if Review aggregator shouldn't be merged here as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Rating site]]