Deceit on the Internet: Shopping Reviews -- Reducing Fake Amazon Reviews.

Fake and deceitful reviews on shopping sites is a common occurrence. Amazon.com is the largest internet shopping site, and gets a tremendous number of reviews on a tremendous number of products and services that might be sold on Amazon. Undoubtedly, many of these reviews are fake and false. Some parties may almost be in the business of promoting their product and hurting competitors' products by fake reviews posted on Amazon by themselves or their flacks (shills). We have extensively reported on one such party in this blog.

We are aware that Amazon has procedures in place to try to prevent or reduce such bogus reviews. However, there is little doubt, that a substantial number of fake reviews get by Amazon's people who examine these reviews (we shall refer to them as Examiners). We feel that much of this is because of Amazons dedication to allowing a variety of expressions and opinions to be expressed. And Amazons criteria for allowing a review on its site is loose and often subject to interpretation by its Examiners. Unfortunately, the quality of Amazon's Examiners goes all over the place, from intelligent and willing to understand the circumstances for or against a review, to people who are incapable of going beyond a very literal reading of Amazon's rules, with no other considerations allowed. These latter Examiners have a favorite phrase which is often used - "This does not violate Amazon's rules."

This blog entry is not intended to be a critique of what may be wrong with Amazon's review policies. Our objective is to reduce deceit on the internet. So let us present an opinion expressed as a comment by Helen Smith on August 4, 2013 to our blog entry "Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Fizzle and Frazzle" which we posted on this blog on August 2, 2013. Helen's comments are reproduced below:

Helen Smith   August 4, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Hi,

I am repeating a comment I posted on an earlier entry on this blog, as it is applicable anywhere a seller is trying to prevent fake reviews. My suggestion relates to fake reviews on Amazon.

What you have said in an earlier blog Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Fizzle and Frazzle is so correct. I quote

"They have been very vociferous in their proclamations, many of them based on Chummie's deceit. They have screamed at anyone who called their bluff, or pointed out their flaws, or suggested any changes in their aggressive and deceitful practices and behavior. Chummie's response was often to invent even more deceit with which to threaten persons or parties that they felt threatened by. All with the intent to continue on their road of deceit.

They are obviously after DryBuddy, which must be scaring Chummie silly with their product(s). From what I have read in your entry "Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Part 2," Chummie will be facing a major competitive problem shortly.

With Chummie's established track record of deceit and manipulating reviews on sites like Amazon, I would bet that Chummie will be flooding Amazon with fake negative reviews on any product that DryBuddy places there. Other competitors might as well.

I am an Amazon seller in a completely different area. I have also had to endure fake negative reviews from competitors. I would suggest that DryBuddy considers doing what I do.

The review must come from a buyer who is both "Amazon Verified Purchase" and also "Real Name." Using just "Amazon Verified Purchase" lets people buy an inexpensive item and provide a fake review. And for a bad-mouthing competitor like Chummie, it may be worth spending $30 to be able to lie about your product. So by itself it is not reliable. But when you add "Real Name" to it, now will have only proper reviews from people who are willing to back up their review truthfully with their name.

For people who may have purchased the item directly from you, explain that they will have to use the "Real Name" on Amazon which matches their credit card "Real Name" when they ordered from you. Else it is probably a fake review.

Using both "Amazon Verified Purchase" and also "Real Name" has worked for me. Several genuine customers have informed me that my explaining this and branding an inappropriate review as a possible fake for these reasons has been very acceptable to them. And for people who want to lie, brand them and forget them. They may bring your Amazon rank down, but there isn't much you can do about fakes and liars, unless you also want to be like Chummie and massively flood Amazon with fake positive reviews.

I hope that this helps you and every other seller and buyer on Amazon and similar sites to try and keep reviews honest. I shall post it on some of your other blogs as well, and you may post this comment as a blog entry anywhere on your deceit related sites.

I appreciate the big effort that you have put into revealing deceit in the bedwetting alarm industry. We need this in other areas as well.

Good luck, and God Bless you.

Helen's idea merits consideration. State on your Amazon placement that if a buyer wishes to offer a review on Amazon, the purchase from Amazon must be made using the buyer's "Real Name" - the name on the credit card used for the purchase at Amazon. Although it is not impossible for such a name to be false, it is very likely to be a true name. Further state that a reviewer must have a "Real Name" as well as be an "Amazon Verified Purchase" for the review to be considered valid.

If the item can be purchased directly from the seller's site, the seller should state on the site that it must be purchased using the same name as on the credit card being used on the purchase. It must then be reviewed on Amazon with the same name which Amazon would certify as being a "Real Name." The seller could verify that this is a valid purchase from his/her site, since Amazon would not have labeled it as an "Amazon Verified Purchase."

Reviews that do not meet these criteria for proof of actual and valid purchase would be branded as "FAKE."

Explain this on your site and on your Amazon placement. People who do not wish to give or use their real name can still buy from either Amazon or the Seller's site using a pseudonym. But any review on Amazon would be label FAKE. As part of this FAKE label, state why the review has been so branded, since the buyer did not follow the conditions for a purchase which would be considered to be valid for a review on Amazon. These instructions would have been posted on both Amazon's and your site.

We recognize that Helen's idea may be difficult to follow for products sold by many sellers who do not have access to all sale records. But for numerous sellers selling unique items or limited to just selling on Amazon and/or their own site, it might work.

We do not know if this would be acceptable to Amazon. And although we understand Helen's viewpoint, there is some possibility that a potential customer may take umbrage for whatever reason. But, as stated earlier, if the customer does not intend to post a review on Amazon (and most don't) then using a pseudonym is not an issue at all.

As we said earlier, this merits consideration. Your feedback is welcome. Please make your feedback productive, participative and honorable, whether you agree with the idea or not. Suggest improvements to make it more feasible. It is important to all persons, buyers, sellers and Amazon, that reviews not be fake and prejudicial.

Please remember that our objective is to reduce and try to eliminate deceit on the internet. Reducing fake and bogus reviews on Amazon would be a substantial step in that direction, an objective that only the rogues can object to - and they would not do that publicly.

Thank you.

Deceit on the Internet: Product Blogs --- Strong Deceit.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Deceit on the Internet: Product Blogs.

Continuing with our discussion of Deceit on the Internet, as suggested and explained at http://stopdeceit.blogspot.com/2013/07/stop-deceit-on-internet.htmlwe shall look at how product blogs are used for deceit.


Product Blogs:

This is something that each interested person can do for themselves. We did a Google search by the product names for the four products that we had considered in the earlier post of "Deceit on the Internet: Shopping Reviews." We can only give you a summary and our “feelings” based on our search. We only searched for the four products, A, B, C, and D which were evaluated in our earlier comments about Shopping Reviews.

For both Product A and Product B there were a large number of listings on product blogs. It is difficult to distinguish much difference between the techniques or results for Product A versus Product B. They both seemed to be reading out of the same book, and had rather similar results. So the next few paragraphs summarizes our thoughts for both Product A and Product B.

Both manufacturers were very aggressive in trying to “place” their products with any and all parties that would offer a "good" opinion about these products on their blogs, or help in spreading “the word” in a "good" sense about these products on the internet. Almost without exception, these blogging parties were individuals or small groups of individuals. Some stated that they were writing this blog entry because they had been given this product to review and then keep. We are aware that there are some blogs whose “owners” will write whatever they are told to write and enter that into their blogs for a monetary fee or other compensation. These blogs were also represented.

Both manufacturers also compensated these blogs by offering “discount coupons” through these blogs, which the blog owner would hopefully benefit from by attracting more traffic and consequently more paid advertising of some sort or the other. Many of these blogs were obviously providing statements (or reviews) from the manufacturers, or were copying significant elements of the manufacturers’ advertising in their “reviews.” Even blogs set up with names associated with bedwetting or bedwetting alarms were essentially servicing the manufacturers, and had doubtful or no validity or credibility in our opinion. Furthermore, some blog writers were blindly taking for granted the validity of other reviews on the internet (which we have already demonstrated can be quite fictional) and using them to validate their preferences, if these reviews so suited them. This may sound absurd and is undoubtedly unethical, but there is a lot of selective adoption of possibly unreliable information, if it suits the reviewer’s objectives.

As an illustration of how a manufacturer may actually advertise to entice other bloggers and persons to promote their product, we have copied an actual example from the internet, leaving out the blog and manufacturer’s name:


Bedwetting Alarm Giveaway & Blogger Opp!

This is a FREE blogger opportunity (with paid options)

Open to US Residents Only

Sign up:  April 14, 2013 to April 28, 2013

Giveaway Dates:   May 1, 2013 to May 15, 2013

Participation Rules:

·        Participation is FREE (with paid options).

·        You agree to promote the giveaway once it goes live at least 3x per week

Pricing:

·        One free link of your choice - Facebook or Twitter or Pinterest only with announcement post

·        $5.00 fee to waive announcement post

·        The following additionallinks are $1.00 each:

o   Facebook

o   Twitter

o   Pinterest

I will be posting a reminder for this once it goes live! 

We did not find such issues for Products C and D to any significant extent.

Bearing in mind that Products A and B are relatively new compared to Products C and D, we must assume that the manufacturers of A and B were trying to make their presence known on the internet. It is unfortunate that both manufacturers had no qualms about paying (in cash or kind) to having their products touted on these blogs. These reviews and blogs are bogus and fake. Any reader of these blogs must remember that they have poor credibility and are often mouthpieces for whoever may be compensating them in any way. And more individuals are trying to make an extra buck by starting such “for hire” blogs. This is not a good trend as two sets of greedy people, the people setting up and running blogs, and the manufacturers and sellers, are only increasing deceit on the internet by fake postings on these blogs.

We should also point out that many blogs run by organizations that have developed a reputation in the heath advisory area can also be quite deceitful. The organization running the blog in its name may be unbiased and innocent, but members posting reviews, and moderators responsible for editing these reviews can be quite biased. Moderators have been know to delete entries that may question their biases and opinions, and even  make it impossible for opposing views to be registered by "closing" that thread while maintaining on the blog only the opinions that the moderator supports, and get away with it because of inadequate controls on the part of the owner organization.

In conclusion, we must agree with Stop Deceit, that many blogs run by private individuals, small groups of persons, and even normally reliable organizations without adequate controls, can have substantial fake reviews on them. If Consumer Reports reviews bedwetting alarms, you can expect unbiased reviews. But “Moms-bedwetting-alarms-reviews” (the name is fictional and not intended to criticize anyone) probably should be ignored, unless you find its reading entertaining. Caution and prudence are highly recommended before the reader accepts reviews at their face value from these blogs.

Deceit on the Internet: Shopping Reviews

Deceit on the Internet                                                                         (July 19, 2013)


We were intrigued by an entry (comment) by Anon on our entry for Chummie: Strong Deceit by Perversion on July 15, 2013. Anon referenced a blog http://stopdeceit.blogspot.com/titled Stop Deceit on the Internet. The author(s), using the name “Stop Deceit,” gave a decent description of deceit on the internet. Stop Deceit gave three basic sources of deceit on the internet:
1.       Manufacturer’s Web Sites,
2.       Product Blogs, and
3.       Shopping Reviews.
We would strongly recommend that readers look at http://stopdeceit.blogspot.com/ .

We have been systematically addressing deceit on manufacturers’ blog sites for bedwetting alarm manufacturers on this blog. We felt intrigued about how much deceit there may be with respect to bed wetting alarms on shopping blogs and shopping reviews. As we are following the bedwetting alarm industry, we thought we should look at bedwetting alarm related deceit in Product Blogs and Shopping Reviews


Shopping Reviews:

We chose Amazon.com for our basic analysis, as Amazon is undoubtedly the biggest shopping site (even for bedwetting alarms) and we can expect the most buyer reviews. Furthermore, Amazon does provide more information about the reviewer and the reviewer’s history at Amazon, so that we could better analyze the reviewer. To get a sufficiently large sample, we arbitrarily decided to look at “wired” alarms currently being sold on Amazon so that their reviews would be available to us. We also decided to only consider alarms where there were more than fifty reviews, so that we could have a reasonable sample size. Even there, to somewhat limit the time we might have to spend on this task, we selected four alarms which we felt might adequately cover the different styles and prices available.

Our intent was to try and get a plausible idea of the extent to which the reviews were unduly biased, and whether they were biased in favor of or against that particular alarm. In other words, we were attempting to identify the extent to which reviews might have been provided by shills or touts of the manufacturer (which would unduly favor that item) or by competitors (which would unduly bad-mouth the item). We then came up with a set of criteria to apply to each and every revue for that product on Amazon. We do want to point out that the criteria are subjective and are not necessarily perfect in their ability to identify touts or shills. But we feel that the identified reviews are much more likely to be unduly biased, and not be honest reviews by honest and actual buyers.

The following table shows the  results for the number of possibly biased reviews out of the total, and further breaks them up into positive bias (perhaps shills for the manufacturer/seller) and negative bias (perhaps shills for competitors). They are expressed as a percentage of the total identified biased reviews (rounded to the nearest whole percent):

Product A:           34%        Positive Bias       32%        Negative Bias     2%

Product B:           31%        Positive Bias       25%        Negative Bias     6%

Product C:           11%        Positive Bias         9%        Negative Bias     2%

Product D:             2%        Positive Bias         2%        Negative Bias     0%

 

We must confess that the high percentage of bias that we judged to be present for Product A came as no surprise to us. We also see that a huge proportion of those are positively biased, perhaps unduly raising the "ratings" for Product A. We must “assume” that the manufacturer is quite desperate or non-caring about using deceitful reviews so as to raise the ratings of their product. So the “ratings” that you see on Amazon for this product are possibly very biased (skewed) on the high side and wrong.

 

Product B was the newest of the four products examined, and we were somewhat surprised that the percentage of possibly fake reviews was so high. The primary difference between Product B and Product A is that B has not flooded Amazon with possibly biased positive ratings as much as Product A might have. So the proportion of positive to negative biased reviews is less for Product B than for Product A. Never-the-less, Product B also appears to be overindulging in introducing biased reviews into Amazon.

 

Product C is an established product. Although the percentage of possibly fake reviews was lower, we still considered it to be high. The ratio of positive to negative biased reviews is about the same as for Product B.

 

Product D is also an established product. Here, our surprise was that the bias was so low, as compared to the other products. Without mentioning names, we must commend the manufacturer of Product D for our not noticing much presence of shills and touts in the reviews of this product.

 

In conclusion, we must agree with Stop Deceit, that even the “best” of shopping sites, using their own criteria for weeding out fake reviews, was unable to prevent a substantial number of possibly fake reviews from being presented on Amazon.com . For Product A and Product B, we estimate that about one-third of the reviews could be fake. This is a huge fraction of the total reviews. Consequently, do not take these reviews as “the honest truth.” Take them with a grain of salt, or even a shovelful of salt.

Potty Pager: Strong Deceit by Perversion and Concealment.

Potty Pager        http://www.pottypager.com/Home/                     (July 16, 2013)


Potty Pager is sold by the same company that sells the Night Hawk bedwetting alarm. Unfortunately, the web site for Potty Pager is even more devoid of useful and factual information than the site for Night Hawk.

There was less information about the Potty Pager than the Night Hawk. There was a small picture of the Potty Pager, which looked quite similar to the Night Hawk. If it is like the Night Hawk, we would refer the reader to our review of the Night Hawk as well.

The instruction manual was quite similar to that of the Night Hawk. Except for mentioning that the Potty Pager uses two (2) AA Lithium batteries, and showing where the alarm is located on the user, we could find nothing more informative about the Potty Pager device.

The entire site is basically a sales pitch which avoids providing relevant details about the Potty Pager device itself.

We consider this site to be particularly void of factual information relative to its Potty Pager alarm. We could not even determine how the Potty Pager may be different from its identical looking Night Hawk twin. The seller must believe that the buyers do not merit, or would not like to know, or should not be provided with proper information, but should buy the Potty Pager merely on the basis of the sales pitch. Perhaps there is not much worth talking about the Potty Pager. We find this approach to be very unsettling.

Our usual reference site at http://www.urinealarms.com/ did not list Potty Pager among the alarms whose properties are described there. We would recommend that the Potty Pager be compared (if that is possible with such a little information about it) with other wired and wireless alarms on this site, so that the reader gets a good idea of the abilities and value of the many other alarms available, and can then decide if it is worthwhile to pursue Potty Pager any further.

Strong Deceit by Perversion and Concealment.

Rodger Clippo: Deceit by Concealment.

Rodger Clippo    http://www.rodger.nl/en/products/clippo-dayalarm.html           (July 10, 2013)


Looking at Rodger's site above, there is much less information about the Clippo alarm than we previously saw about their wireless alarm. There is one picture, and a statement of the essential properties. The page is very concise, and many details are missing. Thankfully, boasts and exaggerations are also missing.

Rodger appears to believe that they do not need to provide readers with any substantial information about their Clippo alarm. Based on this very limited information, we would give the Rodger Clippo a rating of Deceit by Concealment.

We would strongly recommend that instead of fishing in the dark, readers should check a comprehensive bedwetting alarm comparison site such as
http://urinealarms.com/Wired_Alarm_Chart.html
and compare the Clippo with the properties, abilities and costs of other wired bedwetting alarms to determine what may be most suitable.

Deceit by Concealment.

Night Hawk: Strong Deceit by Perversion and Concealment.

Night Hawk                         http://www.bedwetting.us/                      (July 9, 2013)
 

Night Hawk is a bedwetting alarm which raises many questions.

Night Hawk refers to itself as being “wireless.” The nature of the alarm is such that the urine sensor is attached to and part of the alarm “box,” so that the entire alarm is placed at the urination area. Although there are no external wires connecting the sensor to the alarm (it is one unit), in standard electrical/electronic terminology “wireless” is commonly used to describe signal transmission through the propagation of electro-magnetic waves between a transmitter and a receiver. We think that Night Hawk’s use of the word “wireless” is misleading, as one cannot place any receiver away from the Night Hawk device and have the receiver trigger an alarm. This is deceit by perversion.

On its first web page, at the bottom, Night Hawk states that its Vibe power is 6.0 watts. This is completely meaningless to us, as Night Hawk provided no further explanation. We are assuming (and this may be false) that the Night Hawk provides strong vibrations. The same is true for the Buzzer Volume of 100dB*. We could find no explanation or reference point for the *. Although we really don’t know it as a fact, we very much doubt that a user, with his/her ears perhaps two feet away from this alarm, would hear 100dB sound levels. Night Hawk provides no clarifications. This is deceit by perversion and concealment.

 

We felt uncomfortable about the 100dB sound level for an alarm. If the volume at the ear was truly that, might this loud sound harm the hearing? We asked an audiologist, who said that anything louder than 85dB would be considered to be potentially harmful for the hearing.

We understand that Night Hawk recommends that this alarm be used with older patients. Although we prefer not to pass judgment on the working of an alarm, our senses do not find the idea of strong vibrations in genital areas appealing. We recognize that young adults may have a different opinion on the appeal of strong vibrations in the genital area, but such devices are usually called something other than a bedwetting alarm.

To get any understanding of how the alarm may be placed on the patient and used, we had to look at the instruction sheet which was provided. Here too, there was no information about size, weight, etc. But looking at the batteries used (2 AA Lithium batteries), we can imagine why Night Hawk does not say much about any physical characteristics, including the high cost of replacing these batteries.

There was very little factual information about the Night Hawk on its web site, other than the little that we have addressed. Perhaps there is not much worth talking about the Night Hawk.

Our usual reference site at http://www.urinealarms.com/ did not list Night Hawk among the alarms whose properties are described there. We would recommend that the Night Hawk be compared (if that is possible with such a little information about it) with other wired and wireless alarms on this site, so that the reader gets a good idea of the abilities and value of the Night Hawk compared to the many other alarms available.

Strong Deceit by Perversion and Concealment.

Malem MO3: Deceit by Concealment.

Malem MO3       http://www.malem.co.uk/audio-range-maximum-performance-at-minimum-size-alarm             (July 8, 2013)


Malem’s web site for its MO3 alarm is rather like its other alarm descriptions – concise, without significant exaggerations, and not particularly informative. The entire description is in seven sentences. Much of the page is dedicated to colors, sounds, options, and prices. We do not object to the contents of the page, but would have liked to see it more complete and answering obvious questions that arise when reading it.

“…have a choice of safety pin and a reliable clip.” We could not find any information about this clip, and wonder about its design, how and where it can be used, and its effectiveness.

Batteries are provided, but what is their “size” or model number, and consequently cost? If they are small and expensive, this can significantly raise the cost of using the alarm. Looking at http://www.urinealarms.com/Wired_Alarm_Chart.html three A76 batteries are needed. These are “button” type batteries. We found them online at Walmart at a price approximately double that of a brand-name AAA alkaline battery. The capacity of an AAA alkaline battery is much greater than an A76, which means that the relatively frequent replacement costs of the three A76 batteries can add up significantly.

This alarm does not have a vibration mode. We found that out, not by reading Malem’s description on this page, but by noticing that they had another model (alarm) which provides a vibration.

There is no mention of a low battery indicator, or a volume control (they are not in the alarm).

Malem places a great emphasis on sound in this alarm. "Malem Enuresis Alarms have loud sounds..." (the underline emphasis is ours). Surprisingly, we could find nothing on the MO3 site about the loudness of the sound. For an alarm focusing on and emphasizing sound, not providing its loudness is deceiving.

We would again suggest looking at a comprehensive bedwetting alarm comparison source such as http://www.urinealarms.com/Wired_Alarm_Chart.htmlto compare the merits and price of the Malem MO3 versus other similar alarms, and make an informed decision of its value to you.

Deceit by Concealment.

Malem Wireless Alarm (MO12): Deceit by Concealment.

Malem Wireless Alarm (MO12)     http://www.malem.co.uk/wireless-alarm      (July 3, 2013)

Looking at Malem’s website (above) for its MO12 wireless alarm is an exercise in frustration. How can such an “old” company present such a little information about its product, and present it incompletely? Following are some of their limited comments or explanations about their product:

“Comfortable, compact and light-weight.” What is its size, weight, etc.?

“Easy to set up and use.” How? Why?

“Transmitter magnetically clips to underpants waistband.” How? Explanation? Description?

“Uses Malem’s famous unisex Easy-Clip sensor.” Substantiation? Description?

“Advanced auto channel tuning with 64 choices.” This means what? Explanation?

The other such statements are rather trivial and obvious.

For a bedwetting alarm, using sound as its only alarm, we find the absence of loudness for the alarm to be disturbing. The reader should be interested in the loudness of the audio alarm at a typical distance from the ear where the alarm is usually placed.

All-in-all, these are rather incomplete explanations, with poor details (if any) of what is being provided and how it works. This is deceit by concealment.

The plus about Malem’s site is that there is no absurd bragging about being the “best” or other extravagant claims that some other bedwetting alarm manufacturers make.

Still, we come away from looking at this site feeling quite ignorant about Malem’s alarm. Perhaps Malem thinks that everyone should know everything that there is to know about their alarm, or simply assume that because this is Malem, nothing merits much explanation. To us this is akin to Malem saying “Since we are Malem, we don’t need to say or explain much. And if you don’t understand this adequately, tough!” Perhaps Malem does not particularly care if their site is user friendly, or readers understand their product.

We would urge the reader to go to a detailed comparative site such as http://urinealarms.com/Wireless_Alarm_Chart.html  and compare this alarm’s properties and price with those of other wireless bedwetting alarms.

Deceit by Concealment.