Viewpoints Takes on Epinions With Personalized Reviews
Viewpoints.com has set its sights on being the "end
all" review site for people who like to read and write reviews. This niche probably
should have been filled by now, but mysteriously no one site has dominated this segment
of Web 2.0 - with the possible exception of Epinions. Viewpoints offers a platform for reading,
rating and writing reviews on everything from laptops to schools and more. In all,
Viewpoints has over 700 categories - which they claim is the most comprehensive "citizen
view" on the Web. There are substantial obstacles in developing a credible review community, but CEO Matt Moog told me that he believes Viewpoints' focus on reviewer
profiles will overcome the credibility hurdle with time.
On the Web we currently have a mixed bag of review sites - everything from Epinions to remote blog sites.
What Makes a Good Review Site?
We are looking to make informed judgments; or in the case of writing reviews, we want to share these pieces of knowledge. In a nutshell - we want a combination of a website(s) we can utilize and one (or more) that we can trust. So far the larger consumer review sites essentially offer limited reviews, hype or in the case of Epinion type sites - just consumer feedback. The big question is: "Do we want/need an all-in-one review entity?" Matt Moog and his team believes a a great number of people do and they have laid out a rather extensive platform to personalize the experience.
Partial view of detailed reviewer profile
Personalization is the Differentiator
Viewpoints approaches reviewing from a slightly different (or enhanced) angle, with a participatory architecture for accreditation. Users are asked to complete unique "I AM" tags that let others know about their traits, personal information and their relationship to the things they review. These profiles are intended to "personalize" the reviews and promote trust and connectedness, in an otherwise clinical venue. Sites like Epinions show product feedback and some data, but the personalization factor is minimal. Viewpoints hopes to capitalize on the power of in-depth person to person discourse.
Perhaps the best way to evaluate Viewpoints' effectiveness right now is to rate their features and the degree to which the site addresses its own goals and hurdles:
- Web 2.0 Technology - Fair, a low tech site by Web 2.0 standards. UI enhancements/features should be addressed.
- Credibility - Undetermined, some reviews are whimsical while others "appear" relevant and meaningful
- Navigation - Good, being of simple design the site is adequately linked - A straight journey from signup to editing
- Writing Editor - Good, a simple but effective edit UI - Sufficient, but more flexibility would benefit reviewers and readers
- Categories - Excellent, with 20 main categories and dozens of sub-categories - This could be displayed better and expanded
- Content - Fair, the number and quality of the reviews is not there yet. The "personalization" effect takes time and valid reviews
- Profiles - Very Good, this would be excellent except for the overall "low tech" feel. Importation of personal data would be good.
- Ads - Fair, Googlish and prevalent ads. Some creativity needed to reduce obtrusiveness to the relevant ads.
- Graphics/Media - Good, as mentioned it is not Web TV, but the integration of Vlog or simple video would help
- Community - Very Good, the community corner accesses: mail, blog, friends, rewards, support and feedback
- Accountability - Fair, the members are the caretakers of value for the site. Attrition or negative/positive feedback - then admin
Example of a members review
Pros
The site's 100,000 users have made this into a real reviewing community and they have done a great job of getting across the personality message as well. This concept (or rather the application of a social norm) of "personalizing" objectivity it very valid - in fact this is what Web 2.0 is based on. The platform for expanding a great review community is stable and there is plenty of room for growth. Matt reflected on the "scaling" of Viewpoints and iterated that their backing and strategy reflects patience and getting it right before numbers. The simplicity of the site lends itself to easy discoverability and I found no glitches to speak of. Though many of the reviewers are obviously not experts, as Matt expressed in our conversation, the sincere experiences and first hand knowledge of "known" or more personalized people carries a "special:" weight.
Would you trust this person? The top of a review noting tags
Cons
Trust is one heck of a rare commodity today, and building a credible reviewer base is going to take some time. I was a little taken back by the fact that Matt told me there was no intended monitoring or quality aspect, other than a basic thumbs up/down or reporting system. The perfect review site in my mind would have a personal approach backed by solid qualified onsite review.
Technologically the site is Web 1.0 with a twist, as widgets and other reviewer resources are not abundant yet. Aside from more advanced and numerous tools, Viewpoints has one big hill to climb. Even outdated sites like Epinions attract millions of users because of their of credibility - however miniscule or outdated. Viewpoints has to get the message out that there is value and truth to their reviews.
Conclusion
The great news for Viewpoints is that the competition is either fragmented or less interactive. Sites like Yelp are localized or more narrowly focused, Consumer Reports is a pay site and Epinions is far from a community. If the idea of what Matt called their "Center of Gravity"- or rich reviewer profiles - catches on, then Viewpoints could have a very big impact.
However, the power of focused blogs, enhanced browsers and other tools of late may also impact this niche. The expertise and credibility of already excellent reviews (blogs, forums, info sites or .orgs) across the Web are Viewpoints' biggest competitors in my view. Ultimately, the viral nature of communities and the negative impact of fragmented, SEO'd or hyped reviews elsewhere should provide this company new users in a steady stream.
FOLLOW RWW ON TWITTER
RECENT JOBS
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Nice one Phil
I think the moderate emphasis on 2.0 features as you lay out above might just be intentional given the mainstream target audience. And personally I think that might work.
Two community review sites that I live by are Chowhound and Trip Advisor. Neither is what anyone would call 2.0-ish but both are hugely successful in terms of community.
What I'm absolutely thrilled to see on ViewPoint is the extensive availability of RSS. I know our user community will love that.
Good luck to Viewpoint, Sameer
Posted by: sameer | July 12, 2007 12:12 AM
Hmm Actually I quite like the design. I don't see the lack of widgets and other bling as a negative. IN fact, I'm tired of people who add that stuff because it's trendy. The criterion should be "does this help visitors and reviewers" not "Will web 2.0 geeks squee over the tech."
I agree that credibility is key, but I'm not sure that more than an up/down mechanism is needed to monitor most reviewers. Gaming will become an issue if Viewpoints gains influence... but more complexity in scoring reviewers may not be the right way to deal with that.
More of an issue for them is gaining awareness. They have 100,000 members... but i've never heard of them.
Posted by: rick gregory | July 12, 2007 1:08 AM
For a non-techie like me, I won't be lost in there. It's easy to use.
Though many of the reviewers are obviously not experts, as Matt expressed in our conversation, the sincere experiences and first hand knowledge of "known" or more personalized people carries a "special:" weight.
I think that's what they're after to make it credible - the personal experience - which varies. So if my experience of a certain product is different from that of the reviewer, I would either cast some doubts on the product or the site for publishing the review.
[Out of topic] Excuse me since we are in the topic of reviews, let me say this. I've read some rubbish reviews for a product [not from the above sites, I haven't read all] or even some blog post. Take a very simple topic like buying a pink doll for a baby girl complete with all the irrelevant ideas [traffic along the way, weather, etc.] to reviewed? What do you call this Phil, Web -1.0? :)
Just a thought.
Posted by: ipanema | July 12, 2007 6:41 AM
"Viewpoints has to get the message out that there is value and truth to their reviews"
First let me say that the post itself deserves much credit for being so balanced. Well done!
On the quote I have extracted...I totally agree with you. If they are able to accomplish this nothing else really matters...widgets, web 2.0...nothing!
Posted by: Adrian keys | July 12, 2007 8:30 AM
Hi Guys,
Great observations! Viewpoints does have a simple elegance to it, and the widgets are not a necessity - but I was really referring to more advanced access to outside sources, navigation and particularly tools for the reviewers.
I totally agree on the "truth" factor Viewpoints is trying to establish. This aspect is like so many that really end up being "black and white" issues. Either the site has credibility or it doesn't in the end. As Adrian says - Credibility is everything.
Ipanema - I know you are a great writer, somewhat lost in this venue but it is okay. In a way, that is what we are really talking about here! The Web 2.0 thing is a nebulous tag put on an evolution of the WWW by Tim O'Rielly and others.
Essentially, the term refers to this version of the web as opposed to the dot com era. This version has certain tools and trends departed from the previous version like Windows 3.1 versus 3.5 etc. The primary identifiable characteristic is "user generated content" with a descending tier of other characteristics.
So, extraneous commentary and tangents away from the original subject are not exclusive of either iteration of the Web. They are a result of A) an undisciplined writing style (like mine) :) or B) the product of a fragmented mind (also like mine).
Now, what were we talking about anyway? :)
Posted by: Phil Butler | July 12, 2007 9:06 AM
I'm more drawn to vertical review sites than to one-stop review shops. So if I want to review a book, I'm more likely to do so on Library Thing than on Viewpoints or Epinions. (Actually I'm more likely to review on my blog and link from Library Thing.) If I want to review a restaurant or store, I'd be more likely to use Yelp. And so on...
Posted by: Andrew | July 12, 2007 2:45 PM
Lord knows i'm Opinionated!! ;))
another thorough Review Phil*
i do like to discover Products or Services that have been Highly Rated by actual Users of said thingamajigs* I know if I'm buying a Laptop or Digital Camera i like to hear what other people say about it*
that said i will be holding off on rushing out to Buy the overpriced iPhone* i will wait until LG or Samsung come out with a far Superior one with way more Features at a much Better Price!! & even Sexier looking!!
has Viewpoints reviewed the iPhone yet??
;))
Posted by: BillyWarhol | July 12, 2007 4:07 PM
Hello everyone. Great comments. I also thought Phil's review was fair and balanced. He is the first journalist I have talked to who took the time to write a review and really use the site. Keep those comments coming. Very valuable.
As for the question about iPhone reviews, here is a link to the four reviews we have thus far on the iPhone.
http://www.viewpoints.com/reviews/Apple-iPhone-8-GB-Smartphone-20493
Thanks
Matt Moog (founder of Viewpoints)
Posted by: Matt Moog | July 12, 2007 4:42 PM
Phil is fair. Good luck with your project. It's getting crowded in this niche.
Posted by: digitalnomad | July 12, 2007 6:22 PM
As a reviewer and user on both Viewpoints and Epinions I found your review a little off. My take is that neither site has a reasonable search engine from a user viewpoint. Currently many of the reviews on Epinions can be found through Google but not their own search engine. When I try to use the Viewpoints search function I get pages of unrelated responses and they haven't seemed to make any inroads on Google.
As far as community, maybe because I am an insider on Epinions (a Category Lead) I find the community aspects of Epinions to be significantly more evolved than those of Viewpoints.
From a writer viewpoint I really like the features on Viewpoints and overall I agree that Viewpoints feels less "antiquated" than Epinions.
Larry
Posted by: Larry | July 14, 2007 5:36 AM
I agree that this article is fair to viewpoints, I also agree with Larry's post.
When reading Phil Butler's take on Epinions not being a community and the potential of Viewpoints as far as becoming a community I had to laugh. Please note, the profile graphics featured within the above article are primarily Epinions members who jumped to Viewpoints for the dollars, while they last.
Do I trust reviews written and reviewers who write for a specific amount of cash? No. If given the opportunity to write X number of reviews for X number of dollars, no matter the content or how helpful the reviews are, then what quality can be expected?
Viewpoints is somewhat wisely recruiting reviewers from other sites. There is a clause in the User Agreement requiring 50% unique content in the reviews. That doesn't seem to be enforced, since a high number of reviews are copy/pastes from other sites with some content deleted to meet requirements. In some cases, especially those members with extremely high numbers of reviews posted, the content is identical to what was copied from other sites.
How is this useful? How does this build a community? Would I trust the opinion of anyone who builds a catalogue of reviews based primarily on copy/pastes from other sites? Of course not and it gives Viewpoints a black eye.
On other points, Viewpoints is user friendly and the lack of superfluous gadgets makes it so. Yes, it's the next generation consumer review site but the site's reviews are yesterday's news.
Posted by: Pauli | July 14, 2007 7:23 AM
Thanks for you insights Larry and Pauli. I cannot disagree with much that you pointed out with regard to potentialities, other than my assertion that "personalization" if it can be made to exist, would add special value (not quantified). The search aspects of either service leave a great deal to be desired.
As for the profiles I displayed - these were selected completely at random because of their relative completeness. I could not tell you who is or is not paid to write reviews anywhere. Also the big ugly guy at the bottom does not write for either of these entities. :)
I suggest anyone looking for qualified reviews - find more than one credible source and then weigh the information derived from these various sources in making any decision.
I suppose objectivity has a cost as everything else does. So, weighing all the comments herein - I think we can safely say that Viewpoints is taking on Epinions with a more personalized approach even if the same reviewers just have more in depth (rich) profiles on Viewpints.
Always, Phil
Posted by: Phil Butler | July 14, 2007 7:01 PM
"Epinions is far from a community"
This quote from your conclusions is far from accurate and leaves me more nervous than sanguine about your comparatives between a site, Viewpoints. which you apparently did a decent job of researching and Epinions. The lack of understanding of Epinions is of concern when you make such broad comparisons. The real strength of Epinions is its community and it has been that way since the early days.
As far as profiles, please take some time to read the Epinions profiles of some of the authors who write both places and compare them to the Viewpoints profiles before assuming that profiles are the strength solely of Viewpoints. As for trust, check out the web of trust at Epinions.
Larry
Posted by: Larry | July 15, 2007 5:47 PM