Talk:User review
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 2601:283:8100:2EF0:62:5060:CD0F:6055 in topic Clear minds hypnotherapy
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Sources
edit- Floyd, Kristopher; Freling, Ryan; Alhoqail, Saad; Cho, Hyun Young; Freling, Traci (2014). "How Online Product Reviews Affect Retail Sales: A Meta-analysis". Journal of Retailing. 90 (2): 217–232. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2014.04.004. ISSN 0022-4359.
- Chevalier, Judith A; Mayzlin, Dina (2006). "The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews". Journal of Marketing Research. 43 (3): 345–354. doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345. ISSN 0022-2437.
- Chintagunta, Pradeep K.; Gopinath, Shyam; Venkataraman, Sriram (2010). "The Effects of Online User Reviews on Movie Box Office Performance: Accounting for Sequential Rollout and Aggregation Across Local Markets". Marketing Science. 29 (5): 944–957. doi:10.1287/mksc.1100.0572. ISSN 0732-2399.
- de Langhe, Bart; Fernbach, Philip M.; Lichtenstein, Donald R. (2016). "Navigating by the Stars: Investigating the Actual and Perceived Validity of Online User Ratings". Journal of Consumer Research. 42 (6): 817–833. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv047. ISSN 0093-5301.
- Luca, Michael (2011). "Reviews, Reputation, and Revenue: The Case of Yelp.Com". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1928601. ISSN 1556-5068.
- Simonson, Itamar; Rosen, Emanuel (2014). Absolute value : what really influences customers in the age of (nearly) perfect information (First edition. ed.). HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0062215673.
Review bomb merge
edit@JacktheHarry: You just did a merge of review bomb into this article. Can you say something about why you did this?
Both concepts seem independently notable to me. Adding the "review bomb" content here puts WP:UNDUE weight in this article toward video game reviews, when actually all sorts of products and services get user reviews. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Because reviewing bombing is the just lots of people posting a user review, and the articles are tiny. Undue doesn't apply, because the articles are underdeveloped.--JacktheHarry (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- JacktheHarry Okay, it is fine for now. But if anyone adds more sources and content then I would support a split again. I think that "review bomb for video games" could be its own article. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- @JacktheHarry: @Bluerasberry:I think the move was more WP:RECKLESS than WP:BOLD, so I have reverted it. If you wish to merge please start a discussion instead so consensus can be reached. However, I think that it has enough sources to pass the WP:GNG and be an independent standalone article on the subject.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- I feel like it is inevitable that these have their own articles. Other related articles which are notable including User review mining from (web mining), user reviews in healthcare, user reviews of mobile apps (from Mobile app), and user reviews and consumer sales. I have repeatedly seen research papers on all these topics, and think that each of these is its own professional field with academic and business publications. I regret to say that although video games have some of the most enthusiastic reviewers, that field has been the target of less academic publication. Still, all of these can probably be expanded into articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- @JacktheHarry: @Bluerasberry:I think the move was more WP:RECKLESS than WP:BOLD, so I have reverted it. If you wish to merge please start a discussion instead so consensus can be reached. However, I think that it has enough sources to pass the WP:GNG and be an independent standalone article on the subject.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- JacktheHarry Okay, it is fine for now. But if anyone adds more sources and content then I would support a split again. I think that "review bomb for video games" could be its own article. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Zxcvbnm you haven't actually explained why it shouldn't be merged, just reverted the change. As of now, sources source 6, 7, and 10 of review bomb don't use the term. Notable examples is the majority of the review bomb. I'm not suggesting it should never have its own article, as of now both pages are too small, and they cover the same subject.--Otterathome (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see how it's too small, it's decently large compared to many articles. Definitely big enough that if it were merged into another article it could be seen as giving undue weight to the subject.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Clear minds hypnotherapy
editAny reviews? 2601:283:8100:2EF0:62:5060:CD0F:6055 (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)