Ron Evans

What's missing from most online reviews? Trust.

Posted by Ron Evans, Oct 07, 2010 7 comments


Ron Evans

Ron Evans

I miss newspapers.

No, I know we still have some daily, weekly, and other newspapers around the country (and my hat goes off to those still working in this field. I also miss hats). But the decline of arts journalism has been massive over the last few years. There are only a few newspapers left in the country that have dedicated arts reviewers/writers – writers who can be trusted to at least publicly declare that they continue to follow journalistic standards. And that's sad.

It's sad, because nothing good has risen up to replace them.

Sure, we have a million review sites out there that allow citizens to review this service or that theatre company, or this production. But who can trust these reviews? I really don't. But in an absence of any other information, they influence a lot of people.

I see a lot of fake reviews. A LOT. I've caught directors writing fake reviews for their shows under assumed names, people writing in fake reviews when they haven't seen the performance, people using assumed names and then just trashing individual actors by name – it's pretty horrible actually. Fake reviews are everywhere – check out this story of a guy who was totally blatent about hiring people to write fake reviews. And anonymity makes fake reviews much more likely – when people can't be held responsible for what they say, they will throw out all manner of bull.

You see, people who went to journalism school learn a few things about how to write reviews, and they follow a code of ethics about reporting on news and giving their opinions in a way that inspires trust. Things like:

  • Telling people your real name, connected with your real photo and contact info – real journalists don't hide behind name fakery, fake email addresses, or “theatre-lover from Sunnyvale” handles. They tell people who they really are, and you can find other things they've written, and even contact them to discuss their opinion.
  • Declaring your connections – real journalists don't conveniently leave out that their brother is on the board of directors for the theatre company, or that they were once a musician for the orchestra being reviewed. They announce those things up front, so people know about any potential bias, and can decide for themselves if a particular connection matters in the trust of the review.
  • Being detailed about why you feel the way you do – real journalists don't just say “This show sucked,” – they point out in detail what exactly they liked or didn't like about the production, and invite criticism and public response.

There are a lot of ethics/rules like this that real journalists follow. A web search for “journalistic ethics” will reveal a number of sources, but one I like is the Society for Professional Journalism code of ethics.

The rise of the citizen reviewer has put the tools in the hands of the masses, so everybody can publish their opinion, but it hasn't taught the masses anything about being an ethical journalist. The next time you write a review, consider the ethics involved. Will you tell people who you are and invite a response from them? Will you declare your connections and bias? Will you give detailed, intellectual information about why you feel the way you do? I challenge you to, and I hope you do. While we as individuals can't all have degrees in journalism, we can show our respect for ethics, each other, and the art by being real and following some  simple journalistic rules. Our sector is starving for trustworthy opinion – will you give it?

TAGGED WITH:
7 responses for What's missing from most online reviews? Trust.

Comments

October 12, 2010 at 12:59 pm

Hi Ian,

I enjoyed your article -- it's great that you and Daniel dove so deeply into thinking these things, and you're right, there is a real difference between the idea of popularity contest and some other form of crowdsourcing. In the same vein, I worked on designing a "most popular links" widget once where the system would display the most popular links users clicked on a site -- but those links were always the largest events that people already knew about, that were drawing in people via search engine traffic, so it became a huge loop and shut out smaller events. That model didn't reflect people with more time on their hands who wanted to game the system of course. I wonder how much American Express would have needed to pay in real money for a regular advertising campaign to reach so many eyeballs int he nonprofit space. A ton more I imagine.

So I'm all for looking at new ways of having the crowd participate in allocating the funding. One sure-fire way of segmenting out the real people from the fakies is to ask them to donate themselves via matching. So, the foundation will match your donation 100, 200, or even 500% to the arts organization of your choice. If you really support them, give. When people need to give more than just their opinion, they pay more attention, and it's a lot harder to fake votes when there is a real cost for each vote. Kinda like needing to buy a stamp to send a letter vs. spamming someone with free email, huh?

Great discussion!

Ron

  • Please login to post comments.
October 12, 2010 at 4:48 pm

Hi Ron,
Interesting idea about having there being a matching relationship between people and the foundation. I wonder, though, if this would mess with the incentives in unexpected ways. Part of the idea behind our system is that you'd have trusted reviewers looking at lots of different projects with which they have no affiliation and giving their opinions. If there's a requirement or expectation to give money, they would probably review a lot less, and because of that the coverage wouldn't be as wide and each proposal would receive a smaller amount of attention. I worry that it would exacerbate some of the capacity issues that led us to propose this solution in the first place. Look forward to talking through these ideas with you further at NAMP!

Ian

  • Please login to post comments.
October 10, 2010 at 5:06 pm

Ron,
I've been thinking a lot recently about this issue and particularly the need for online rating systems to separate "good" reviewers from "bad" reviewers. A classmate of mine from grad school, Daniel Reid, and I collaborated on an article for the forthcoming 20UNDER40 anthology about this very subject and proposed a way in which such a merit-based system could be implemented and tied, of all things, to grant funding. Check it out here and let me know what you think: http://createquity.com/2010/08/popularity-contest-philanthropy.html

  • Please login to post comments.
October 07, 2010 at 10:25 pm

I'm glad this post inspired some discussion! @Kathy -- I totally support arts writers/bloggers who declare who they are in real life, and who attempt to be fair about their writing and what they are reviewing. From what I can see, you do that on your site, so that's cool -- people can begin to trust you for your opinions and expertise. In my mind, you are applying journalistic ethics to your writing. My problem is with people who write fake reviews under assumed names, and I want readers to be dubious about trusting reviews from people that don't reveal who they are, their connections to the organization, etc.

@David, citizen reviewers aren't going away, and of course we wouldn't want them to! But perhaps if they realize that the way they write their review (and by revealing who they are in real life, etc.) has an effect on how much "weight" their review has in the world, they will consider what they write. I imagine that a review system could take that into consideration -- if you reveal who you are and link your review to your public profile, your review is given more "weight" in determining things like Top 10 lists and "most popular shows" and such. But the first line of caring should be the reviewers themselves -- people should just "be real" and declare who they are so that we can engage in real conversation.

@Tom, I just want honest opinions by real people I can trust, who are genuinely interested in having a conversation about the arts. You know when you leave a great play with your friend, and the two of you are walking down the street and saying "Man, when he did that, what were you thinking?" -- that's the kind of thought I want to see online. Anything anybody can do to convince me that they are real, and make me trust what they say more, is worth it to me, and to what they write. -Ron

  • Please login to post comments.
Tom says
October 07, 2010 at 2:59 pm

Do you want journalists, or critics? It's not hard for a critic's reviews, to be published online. A critic stands by his name as part of their reputation/authority.

Apart from writers - which are still out there I'd imagine - you want reviewers. But really, you want art critics. Just as someone looking to buy white goods wants informed unbiased review - (Which for example).

  • Please login to post comments.
October 07, 2010 at 2:32 pm

I can definitely appreciate where you are coming from, Ron; but it does leave me with a question: What can we do to encourage citizen critics to adopt a more journalistic code of ethics? If we assume that citizen reviewers are not going away, how can arts organizations and artists encourage these online reviewers to be more transparent with their biases and affiliations?

  • Please login to post comments.
Kathy says
October 07, 2010 at 2:10 pm

I'm not a journalist, but as an art historian with a blog, I feel more qualified to judge and be truthful to the arts. I wrote for a newspaper years ago and was not allowed to say what I wanted to say or even review what I thought worthy of review.

Trust? The layperson (perhaps you?) may struggle to know who to trust, but there are a number of art writers/bloggers who know much more about the arts than a journalist. And many of us would agree newspapers should devote space (and money) to arts coverage, but not for reasons of trust. Because the arts should be valued.

  • Please login to post comments.