This was a recent article on Read Write Web dot com. It got me to thinking about the validity, and hence the usefulness, of user generated commentary. In some cases I use feedback to make purchase decisions on Amazon , eBay and other sites. However, in using other peoples comments and feedback I utilize my own built-in algorithm to check for consistency and credibility. The real problem comes when we are not presented with the information at all — we have no opportunity to make our own decisions.
You know how it works. You see 10 reviews and they are all 5 stars, great product. Then you see the lone 1 star review and you wonder? Well, what I do is read carefully Mr or Ms “one star”. Do they make a valid point that is applicable to my use of this product or are they just upset about a situation or feature about which I don’t really care? We all do it. It’s not that I totally dismiss or am not presented with the negative feedback; I merely apply my own filters once I’m presented with the data.
Evening the Responses or Losing the Viewpoint
We look at user generated content and tend to “even” the responses. We tend to “normalize” the feedback or the information according to our own internal perception of the world. It’s a very subconscious process. I do feel much of this “normalization” that occurs is based on media and culture bias and environmental elements that tend to deaden our questioning of the reality around us. That’s another topic. For this topic, we will normalize the content presented to us by this wiki side bar feature. However, the real danger is in how does the information get “normalized” prior to being presented to us. When we are told that algorithms will “filter” content that is not useful what does this mean? As we rely more and more on technology we run the risk of having information never reach our eyes.
hdmi from Basse-Normandie, France on Every politician needs a photo of a Health Care nightmare on his or her desk
