I’M FED UP WITH THIS CRAP. HERE’S MY BLOCK LIST.
Apr 23 '03 (Updated Jan 30 '05)
The Bottom Line The WOT’s got a flip side, homies. Block. Block like the wind!
I promised some time ago to publicly reveal my Block List for the community to see. That promise was put on the backburner as I endeavored to accomplish more important things (shaving Babylonian battle runes into my dog’s back, tricking Epinions users into sending me pictures of their naked breasts, marketing a new brand of large, veiny, clown-headed dildos, etc.)
However, there is now community outcry (one guy e-mailed me) that I stand and deliver the promised goods. So I shall.
The Block List (formerly known as the “Web of Distrust”) is the WOT’s evil cousin. It is the tool with which Epinions equips its users to, ummm, “fight abuse”. Epinions is very dependent upon the community, which is essentially self-policing (with some exception and intervention– e.g. its erratic, unevenly administered ticketing system.)
So how does Epinions desire you, Joe User, to use this valuable tool with which they have so kindly provided you? According to the Epinions FAQ (which I am notorious for liberally quoting, as it so often treated as scripture and must be revered with all due respect!) the definition and purpose of the Block List is defined as such:
The Block List is a list of authors whose reviews you do not find valuable. If you encounter a member whose reviews are consistently offensive, inaccurate, or otherwise low quality, you can add that member to your Block List. Just as the Web of Trust promotes the work of those members you trust, the Block List makes it less likely that you will encounter contributions you do not value in the future.
Sounds dandy, huh? With a mere flick of the wrist, you can do YOUR part to make Epinions a place filled with a higher quality, more valuable caliber of review. Oddly enough, though, their Block List definition is based solely around the REVIEWS and not the REVIEWERS. That doesn’t seem right. I mean, what if someone can write the heck out of a product review, yet dresses funny and says things I don’t like in comments? How can I get this person back? How can I silence this dirty dog?
Wait a minute, Sparky, did you say silence this dirty dog, hoss?
That’s right - SILENCE. That’s the effect of Block List usage. With sufficient block power working against a user, his/her reviews are hidden from the community and outside surfer – thus rendering his voice silent. With enough Advisor/CL blockage, the ratings power of an individual is essentially negated, thus rendering his/her ratings useless – a muted voice in the wilderness.
So, use of the Block List should be taken with great discrimination, right? Since it’s intended purpose is to raise the bar of Epinions’ review quality, right?
Naw. Not really. Not according to the Epinions elite. Hell, in recent poll undertaken by a group of Epinions finest – the titled – in a group that proudly proclaims itself “EpinionsBest”, it was shown that there are many, many Advisors who block over fifty people, one who proudly blocks over FIVE HUNDRED!
But all solely to raise the bar of quality or fight abuse, right? Naw. Not really. The consensus among Epinions finest seemed to indicate that personal animus and off-site observations should be sufficient to block others.
So what kind of results does the system produce in terms of community blockage?
Well, it has resulted in the community blockage (e.g. invisibility) of various dregs, abusers, and plagiarists (of the non multi-hatted variety, of course.)
It has resulted in the blockage of users like annexation who, despite the ability to write a fine and helpful review, sometimes says unpopular things or offends sensibilities. In other words, he’s blocked because there are some people who don’t like him.
It has resulted in the blockage of users like sweetcece who, despite the ability to pump out extraordinarily prolific numbers of reviews mostly on par with community expectations, often displays an abrasive and unjustifiably condescending attitude. In other words, she’s blocked because there are some people who don’t like her.
It has resulted in the blockage of users like jillmurphy who, despite being a fine writer and intelligent woman, said some patently offensive and antagonistical things (even by the assessment of someone like me) in one comment section. In other words, she’s blocked because there are some people who don’t like her.
And the list goes on.
Sometimes the mass-block is due to the user’s failings as a writer (but, let’s be honest, there are plenty of Advisors and other celebrated folk who couldn’t write their way out of a wet paper bag, right?) But perhaps just as often it’s a result of some external factor - personal animus, not being likeable - totally independent of writing skill and review quality.
So what kind of results does the system produce in terms of its effect on ratings power?
All ratings power (as verified by Alexis Johnson’s statements in a previous community chat) is passed along to the peon users via the WOTs and Block Lists of Advisors and CLs. So, basically, unless you’ve got a right pretty hat perched upon your right pretty head, your Block List is about useless as tits on a stockholder in determining whose voices have the strongest affect on how reviews are sorted.
A user’s “ratings power” is weighted separately in each category contingent upon how widely he is trusted and/or blocked by CLs and Advisors within that category.
Although the FAQ definition focuses on the quality of a user’s reviews as the desired determinant for how the Block List is utilized, it is widely agreed among the titled that a user’s quality and consistency shown within his ratings practices should be the key consideration in ratings power. There is an obvious discrepancy here in that, obviously, a user can be an excellent writer yet rate the reviews of others using patently absurd standards. Likewise, a user could be an unproficient, buffoonish writer, yet be a diligent reader and have a consistent, desireable, and fair standard for rating the reviews of others.
But that really doesn’t matter anyway, does it? Not if the Advisors are filling their Block Lists with people for non-ratings, non-writing related reasons. Not if the Advisors are allowing personal animus to dictate who they endeavor to “shut up.”
It has resulted in what I call “ratings castration” for a number of whom most would consider the site’s dregs (like 29th_Candidate, who wouldn’t know a SCAD if it bit him on the ankle.)
And it has resulted in the “ratings castration” of otherwise decent writers who have the audacity to speak against the system (almost like a defensive mechanism since those being punished for speaking AGAINST the hierarchy are being punished BY the hierarchy’s top dogs, huh?) This includes people like aggiebrett, hypotenuse, prfstars, mashimaru, and nifer.
And it has resulted in the “ratings castration” of people who have the audacity to adhere to a stringent ratings system themselves (in other words, those who dare rate an Advisor’s work lowly shall be blocked by said Advisor and have their ratings legs cut out from under them). This group would include quasar whose ratings are remarkably ineffectual in certain categories.
So get on with it already, Sord. Reveal your freakin’ block list, ya putz!
Okay, I’ll get to it. Just let me ramble on in an AJ-like fashion for another 3,000 words or so.
So who’s on my block list?
Do I block the idiot who wrote and distributed a “let’s get Sordid” e-mail and then proceeded to place my e-mail address on his page and encourage others to spam me? Gee, maybe. I certainly have some personal animus towards that moron.
Do I block the self-important, vapid girlie who threatened me with spurious lawsuits, baselessly accused me of “cyberstalking”, and then played the Epinions Abuse team like a freakin’ bongo drum and manipulated them into issuing me a groundless, unmerited ticket? Gee, maybe. I certainly have some personal animus towards that ditz.
Do I block the miserable little creature who speaks innumerable lies about me and regularly drops commentarial turds all over the place like the following (penned just today by this ignorant punk):
Hey Sordid! (Reply to this comment)
by matthewn
Saw your picture on your profile. God! What a loser. You're low class trash, and the only way to make your worthless 40 life have any meaning at all is to crap on people younger than you. You dropped out of high school or college, and now blame everyone else for it. What's wrong Sordy? Couldn't hack it anymore?
I really feel sorry for that kid in the picture with you. Let's hope he doesn't grow up to be a sarcastic, obscene, retarded, dickless, irritating dork like you! We don't two of them around.
Hey, I like being the A1 tiger. It means I am tough and strong. Raaaaaaar!
Later
matt
PS I left a comment about you on Ron Drain's 20 write off. Enjoy you snot faced sarcastic loser. Loooooooooser!
Gee, maybe. I certainly hold a great deal of disdain for this contemptible, lying, little hypocrite.
How about the former CL that spuriously reported another to CPS for personally-motivated reasons? How about those behind-the-scenes dirty dealers who conspire in secret to get good, decent writers kicked off the site for useless TOS technicalities? How about the judgmental, milquetoast blowhards who regularly push their agenda of blandness onto anyone who listen and antagonize those who dare speak with an unconventional voice? What about the hypersensitive? What about the pc watchdogs? What about the cut ‘n paste kings and queens who shamelessly condemn the evil abusers out of one side of their mouths while simultaneously stealing the words of others? What about the hopelessly illogical? What about the pathetic soul who regularly and shamelessly stalks (not “cyber”stalks, merely “stalks”) my friend? What about the wizards of sophistry? What about the hopelessly obtuse? The antagonistical? The terminally mundane? The wombats?
Maybe. I can certainly think of plenty of folks who fit those molds. There is no shortage of “types” and “individuals” who I hold in great disdain for reasons both personal and philosophical.
So let’s let it all hang out and swing, wild and free, in the Epinions breeze.
Do I adhere to the purported aim of Epinions to raise the bar of writing on this site? Or do I use MY blockin’ tool as MY way to express what I value? Is it loaded to the brim with all manner of peckerheads and dopes, or have I practiced moderation in blocking? Does it pertain to review habits, or is it personally motivated?
I will say this. Everyone on my Block List has given me some reason at some time to inspire loathing and antipathy. Everyone on my Block List is reviled by at least some segment of the community. I have at least some logical justification for blocking every member of my Block List.
If you want to know exactly WHO I have blocked, just surf to this location to view a screenshot:
http://members.cox.net/codhaddocksalmon/blocklist.jpg
And I urge you to practice wisdom and foresight in considering how you use YOUR Block List when flicking that block-happy wrist as well. There are ramifications resulting from your choices, and YOU can make a difference.
Remember, even a farce of a system can be a beautiful thing as a personal statement.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
Sordid-1
|
 - Top 1000 |
|
Member: Jeffy
Reviews written: 62
Trusted by: 418 members
About Me:
You wouldn't notice a muddy elephant in the snow, would ya?
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.