If there is one thing that I cannot stand, it's those dumb helpful/not helpful choices. I do write reviews on Amazon (my rank's like 11820 or something so I'm clearly not getting any free products) and while I tend to write about books, movies, and cds that I've enjoyed, I am compelled to give a poor review from time to time. I've given exactly 3 1-star reviews (A.S. Byatt's "Possession", "Troy", and the most recent Regina Spektor CD) and all three of them have really low helpful ratings (the CD I think is like 11 helpful votes out of 30). Now I try to be as through as I can possibly be when I write my reviews and make sure that at least a part of what I write about is objective fact. So it seems to me that the helpful votes are not so much about rewarding helpful reviews, but a way to punish people who don't give glowing reviews of products. I've noticed this with other people's negative reviews as well.

Amazon should get rid of the helpful/not helpful buttons and the top reviewers. It makes the whole review thing a sham. I'd rather read reviews written by people who cared about a book or movie than by someone who in a desire for fame, affection, and free stuff.

I think it's fine as a data point. Some reviews are dreck, some seem thoughtful. I'm still going to try to make as informed a decision as I can. And reviews that are woefully inaccurate definitely get flagged. It doesn't mean I follow the recommendation of the most helpful review, but I do give it a bump in credibility. It's better information than the alternative of removing the feature, which gives all reviews equal standing. And now they have the "most helpful positive and negative reviews" feature, which I think is great.

So it seems to me that the helpful votes are not so much about rewarding helpful reviews, but a way to punish people who don't give glowing reviews of products.

Absolutely. Whenever I give a positive review, I NEVER get one unhelpful vote. Whenever I give a negative review, I know I can't count on a majority of unhelpful votes.

"And now they have the "most helpful positive and negative reviews" feature, which I think is great..."

Actually they use the terms "favorable" and "critical". You can almost sense the careful parsing that came up with "critical".

"...the helpful votes are not so much about rewarding helpful reviews, but a way to punish people who don't give glowing reviews of products"

Right. People use "unhelpful" to punish reviews that dare to disagree with the majority favorable opinion, regardless of their quality.

Spy magazine used to have the Blurb-o-Mat, an automated praise generator. The Blurb-o-Mat lives on today in the form of a top Amazon reviewer. Everything is excellent!

And as I recall, also something called Logrolling in our Time in which they showed reviews by two authors praising each other's works.

Web 2.0 exploits the worker. Companies take user content for free and co-opt it for the purpose of selling their particular Brighto. Providers of the most free content get the equivalent of a free T-shirt and their picture in the local newspaper. They are chumps.

"Providers of the most free content get the equivalent of a free T-shirt and their picture in the local newspaper. They are chumps."

Actually, I got a $300 omni remote, and suprisingly, I don't write pretty reviews if I really don't like something.