JUNK DATASA is basically an unmoderated unstructured forum, lacking preview.
Such a model invariably generates a steady amount of garbage.
Even a little garbage accumulates in time, to any size...
Problems
Nonmoderation allows junk data, diluting real content. As time goes by
a growing part of SA will be informational garbage,
its meaning lost existence forgotten.
Here are a few possible Garbage Generators:
Misposted reviews (the right text but the wrong site).
Duplicate reviews (the right text but already posted).
Obsolete reviews (domains change owner/purpose, hacked sites cleaned).
A lot of stupid typos (preserved forever because preview is lacking).
Bogus reviews (scammers registering only to glorify their own crapware).
Mystical messages (from mentally ill who forgot their medication).
And the usual forum trolls, pursuing their own disruptive agenda...
Suggestions
Let at least trusted super users moderate the most important site-threads.
And let all reviewers edit their own posts, including deleting them.
Give us at least Preview for all. Murphys Law is still at large...
UNFORMATTED THREADSAre we still in the 80'ties? Our only format is still plain text, not even italic allowed?
Fine when posts are short, and threads are young. But insufficient beyond oneliners.
Are we still in the 90'ties? Why no images at all? Pictures save thousands of words.
'Canadian Pharmacy' is easy to recognize, if you've seen a screendump once.
But try to describe the same through words only...
Problems
Simplicity is a good thing, but SA is simply too spartan;
even simple little Notepad can be more clever...
It's minimalistic layout beyond reason;
almost any addition would improve the product...
Suggestions
We're not asking for smileys, bells or whistles. Wink
But give us at least italics and bold. And imagine images..!
Lift the maximum size of reviews for trusted users.
Couple size with popularity: Reputation of X allows X Kbytes per post.
Consider the irony: long and well documented reviews sometimes
amputates themselves to fit within the 5K barrier,
while most junk data is allowed to remain forever..?
UNSORTABLE THREADSEach site is a single ongoing thread,
always sorted by time, keeping news on top.
But as threads grow longer, less and less likely
that the best stuff is found first, or even on page one.
Problems
Sorting a growing thread only by time
actually lowers the quality first presented.
Suggestions
Let at least users sort threads by:
1) time, reviewer, reputation or length.
2) color and category
3) search after keyword(s)
4) most traffic or visits, popularity
OBSOLETE THREADSThe InterNet as a whole is forever. Single sites are not.
They grow, diminish. Some evolve, change course, reincarnate.
Problems
When a site changes owner/purpose, old reviews may suddenly become obsolete,
misleading and incorrect. Once correct, but unfortunately transformed to junk data.
Suggestions
A sites status should be reevaluated, when major aspects change.
Obsolete posts should be parked as Site History, along with WhoIs Archives.
UNSTRUCTURED THREADSFora are basically ongoing debates; yet we're not discussing but reviewing.
We're adding to each others work, not opposing other points of view.
We should have a Wiki, instead of this minimal forum.
Problems
The forum model is NOT the best review solution, and it grows worse
(cluttered, unstructured) as threads grow longer and longer. And,
in unmoderated fora every stupid error will be preserved forever.
At the same time, any post, no matter how good or brilliant,
will invariably be pushed further and further down, out of sight.
Sorting only by time garanties only 'news' - not 'quality' or other aspects.
Suggestions
Let reviewers edit a wiki, reputation moderating access/privileges.
And leave discussions to Reviewer/staff's own Forum.
Include sites WhoIs, IP location, blacklist status, etc
Include sites own description:
www.aboutus.org
DEAD LINKSLinks in reviews are dead, unless the reviewer is 'experienced' or above.
For ordinary reviewers not even a link to
www.mcafee.com is live.
Problems
This binary solution is too spartan and allows less than possible.
Why not save clicks, if time is wasted constantly?
Suggestions
Why not live links for all reputations, if links are found on a Whitelist?
If McAfee rates a website green, then it should be safe, right..?
Or if it's the government, a university, an Official Site...
REPUTATIONThe reputation system sometimes falls short. Well documented red ratings
by reviewers of highest reputation can lie unnoticed month after month...
Problems
Reputation makes no difference when it should, if even the highest can be ignored.
How many more top reviewers does McAfee want to loose, before this is fixed..?
The system is even unclear in range:
ReviewerCentral show reputations lower than zero, even -20.
But in all public posts zero is still lowest?
Is range from 0 to 9, or from -9 to +9, or what..?
Suggestions
Clarify and amplify the reputation system.
And show us the real reputation...
Let the post voted on get its own reputation, not just add trust to the reviewer.
Then a thread can sort posts by popularity; what most people got most out of.
And, if a text reaches a negative reputation,
it's probably junk data that should be erased...
LEVELThe level system has normally only 2 levels, 'reviewer' and 'experienced'.
'Staff' is rare and the 'expert'-level seems almost uninhabited; I've only seen it used once.
Problems
Only two levels don't seperate much. Reality is not that binary.
Suggestions
Perhaps Levels should be reconsidered..?
Let's have at least 4 real levels...
RATINGWe have 6 different red, but only 1 green rating.
You're only allowed to select one rating at any given time.
However, todays scam-spam operations are increasingly complex affairs,
not fitting neatly into a single category. Now it rather takes 2-3-4 categories to corner a scum.
Problems
In the present system multiple ratings result in text inflation:
1) Many reviews that have identical text, and only differs in rating.
2) One review with text plus several others with different ratings, but no text to explain or document.
In both cases it's a waste of valuable screen space and users time. Constantly...
Suggestions
Replace the 'radiobuttons' with a more flexible system.
Allow multiple ratings in a single review.
And why not have another positive rating? Perhaps blue...
Signifying: an excellent site, no problems at all, a model for others.
Best in its category, most popular choise for most people...
Increase the weight and effect of a bad rating:
Include the functionality of Complainerator.com to
let reviewers post and report abuse simultaneously.
SCREENTime moves fast, and hardware evolution is no exception.
SAs present layout made more sense when SA was planned in 2004.
Now computers are portable, with wider screens in larger resolution.
And everywhere mobile phones mutate into handheld online PCs.
Problems
The present layout wastes valuable screen space:
One third in 1024X768, and half in 1380X800 is unused.
Yet in small units its still too large...
Suggestions
Upgrade page layout to 2 or 3 columns; use all available space.
Consider a tiny single column version, optimized for handheld units.
FLEXIBILITYThere is no such thing as a standard review / reviewer.
Some reviews are plain nonsens, while others stand out.
Some even bogus, like scammers glorifying their own crapware.
Some have just begun, others have posted thousand times.
Problems
Reviewers can be very varied, and should be treated so...
Suggestions
Use the reputation/level system to graduate reviewers,
if a feature shouldn't be granted to all equally or automatically.
Offer a flexible respons, not a spartan reaction of either or...
COMPLEXITYA scam is no longer just a single individual website.
Time moves fast on the net, and complexity also grows.
But we're still reviewing the 'CanadianPharmacy'-entity
site by site by site, as if it really existed at this atomic level.
Problems
Specific sites means nothing to modern scammers,
that constantly buy, abuse and dump hundreds of domains every day.
A modern scam is really one operation, not a thousand independent sites.
And, we're still posting reviews as if sites lasted forever, but only good sites do that.
Bad sites are created and dumped again at an alarming and growing speed.
Spam exploding, botnets spreading, Storm Worm still loose, etc...
Suggestions
Let's move forward and consider Siteadvisor Next Generation..!
This is only part of a picture, merely a start;
Reviewers/users are welcome to add
everything I overlooked...