JED moderators manipulate with reviews Topic is solved

[romagromov]

Hello!
I found that JED moderators manipulate with reviews.
Explain.
I posted negative review about DropTables extension.
I described disadvantages of the component.
I wrote about very slow support.
And you know what?
Moderators removed my review and now I can't add it again.
When I press on button "Write Review" I got error "Not found!"



Can't believe it happens on JED.
Hey, moderators! They paid you money for this?

[hdouglas]

Romagromov: I was the moderator who correctly removed your review. JED rules clearly state that reviews must not be commercial disputes, yours clearly was. In addition it did not meet many of the other criteria set by the JED Review Rules. Suggesting that moderators were bribed to remove a review is imflamatory, completey untrue and totally unjustified. Please retract this statement immediately.
Hugh Douglas-Smith
JED Review Manager
OSM Board Member

[Webdongle]

@hdouglas
As the OP believes it was a genuine review and you don't ... is there appeals process where the decission can be looked at? (although going by the tone of the OP I doubt you are wrong).

Also if a review is deleted why is it not possible to edit/create another one?

[jonBuckner1]

Also, explaining removal reason would be reasonable me thinks, rather than leaving people in the dark, confused and therefore angry

[romagromov]

Romagromov: I was the moderator who correctly removed your review. JED rules clearly state that reviews must not be commercial disputes, yours clearly was. In addition it did not meet many of the other criteria set by the JED Review Rules. Suggesting that moderators were bribed to remove a review is imflamatory, completey untrue and totally unjustified. Please retract this statement immediately.
Hugh Douglas-Smith
JED Review Manager
OSM Board Member

Hello
It's lie.

1. Review did not have commercial disputes.
2. "did not meet many of the other criteria" - it's too vague a definition.
I wrote, that it's simple tables without ability to replace data from DB. So using this component for working with Data Base - useless.
3. Next - support. I wrote, that it's VERY slow. I got 7 replies in ticket during week. 1 reply per day.
4. And finally I wrote, that I don't use it - because it useless for me.

Yes, I also wrote, that the return policy does not imply a return if the user does not like something.
On the other hand, there is no any other way to test component. You only should PURCHASE it.
And I believe - other users should know about this. But they can't - review removed.

Next. If you don't like my words about return policy - you should moderate (edit) review. But no. You removed whole review. Furthermore, now I can't add new one.

Review should be decline with described reasons.

So, it looks like somebody have own interest it this. This is not a rules, it's a dictatorship.

[jonBuckner1]

As a side note, I use https://extensions.joomla.org/extension ... t-[removed]/ (I think that is it).
Is excellent (for me) and I think it is free, would pay it, for sure

[Webdongle]

...
It's lie.
...

That implies it's a deliberate untruth. However it is more likely that it is his genuine opinion. Given your attitude I doubt he was wrong.

[romagromov]

...
It's lie.
...

That implies it's a deliberate untruth. However it is more likely that it is his genuine opinion. Given your attitude I doubt he was wrong.

English not my native language. So, yes - untruth.
What's wrong with my attitude?
I described my review above.

But Hugh Douglas-Smith only said "did not meet many of the other criteria".
Which exact criterias???. One more time, my review written above.
JED have thousands reviews with same "did not meet many of the other criteria".
And finally - removing? Not soft decline for editing? Do not allow to add review again?
You call this "my attitude"?

[Webdongle]

A 'lie' implies the untruth is deliberate ... that is an accusation.

If you don't know what is wrong with your attitude then you have a bigger problem than an unpublished review.

[romagromov]

A 'lie' implies the untruth is deliberate ... that is an accusation.

If you don't know what is wrong with your attitude then you have a bigger problem than an unpublished review.

No, my dear friend. It's you have a bigger problem, if you don't see, that all this situation is horrible.

My position is simple: removing a review without specifying a reason is unacceptable.
"many of the other criteria" - is not clear reason.
Removal by itself is unacceptable. Review should be rejected.
Prohibition for adding a new review - is unacceptable.
My arguments in the review are transparent and understandable.
If somebody don't unsderstand it - I'm not going help to contribute to the JED anymore.
I have near 40 reviews on JED during 7 years. Most of them have 5 star rating because extensions are really awesome.
If you don't want to see negative reviews just because "many of the other criteria" - I do not participate in this.
Best regards.

[hdouglas]

I do not normally respond to forum topics about specific reviews, the reason for doing so here was because the JED moderators were accused of accepting bribes which is completely unfounded and totally untrue. (something which despite further posts has not been recinded). Where there is a genuine dispute there is a ticket system where matters can be aired with the parties involved and not debated in public, that is the appropriate course of action.

The JED jas always suffered from what we refer to as SPAM posts where unscrupulous developers obtain favourables posts to uplift their own extensions and negative posts against their competition. We therefore have a process to look out for these and when identified they are removed. To detail what we look for would only enable such posters to circumvent exactly what we are trying to avoid. Please note there is no suggestion here that this has been the action of any party involved in this.

Additionally, reviews are often posted negatively because the reviewer had unrealistic expectations of the extension/developer and when not satisfied, seeks revenge through a bad review, in fact we have evidence of many cases of reviewers threatening developers with bad reviews if they do not satisfy what are often unreasonable requests. Again, this comment is not aimed specifically at this incident but is a general comment to give some context to the review checking process.

At the end of the day the moderators on the JED are volunteers who give up their time freely and in significant amounts to provide a service to both developers and Joomla! users. Given the available resources what we are able to offer and the way we do it has to be a compromise, but one hopefully that keeps most people happy, most of the time. Whilst at all times seeking to protect the integrity of the JED and the review system.

When a reviewer takes to open forums and suggests or accuses JED moderators of any form of collusion or impropriatary it is completely unfair to then expect a reasoned debate. It is therefore for this reason, that the JED moderators will stand behind rule 6.5 of the JED terms and conditions:
"Acceptance and/or removal of reviews and votes is at the sole discretion of the JED team and OSM"

[sozzled]

While I think it's going too far to allege, without evidence, collusion or vested interests on the part of JED review staff, by the same token there's a complete lack of transparency here.

I do not believe we have the entire story and for that reason I wouldn't go as far as to accuse anyone of telling untruths.

I am aware of the guidelines for JED reviews. It is certainly established practice that the reviews—particularly negative ones—have many hurdles to overcome. It is also an fact that the JED review staff act first—they unpublish listings, based on anonymous "reports"—before obtaining the facts.

I have written many commentaries in this forum about the non-transparency of some JED Operational behaviour. I appreciate @hdouglas making the effort to explain what happened from his perspective. Nonetheless, if we don't know the contents of the review as it was originally written, we also can't say if it passes the pub test for whether it falls into the category of being a commercial dispute or did not meet "many of the other criteria set by the JED review rules", either.

On this basis, solely, without seeing the original unedited text of the unpublished review, @Romagrov should withdraw hs slander and apologise.

[romagromov]

When a reviewer takes to open forums and suggests or accuses JED moderators of any form of collusion or impropriatary it is completely unfair to then expect a reasoned debate. It is therefore for this reason, that the JED moderators will stand behind rule 6.5 of the JED terms and conditions:
"Acceptance and/or removal of reviews and votes is at the sole discretion of the JED team and OSM"

1. I'm NOT accused JED moderators. It was question. Read last line in my first post.
2. SPAM posts? User, which 7 years posting reviews on JED to make it better?
3. You removed review, so you can't say exactly what was written there. But I really know, what it was.
So, based on these 3 points - yes, it is completely unfair to then expect a reasoned debate.
You only can hides behind the rule 6.5.

Best regards.

by the same token there's a complete lack of transparency here.

Thank you. Though someone noticed this.

[sozzled]

Hey, moderators! They paid you money for this?

This isn't a question: this is an suggestion (or accusation) of bribery!

Further, the very subject of this topic "JED moderators manipulate ... reviews" asserts foul play or one-sidedness by the JED review team.

I'm not saying anyone is right but I am saying that, without evidence of what was originally written in the review, the allegations you've made are unsubstantiated. I think that, in everyone's interests, you should withdraw your suggestions (or accusations) of foul play and accept that you crossed the line. I think that a simple apology from you would put this matter to rest for now.

[brian]

please remember that when someone is clearly not a native english speaker it is very common for their words to appear extremely harsh to those who are native speakers. that's a linguistic fact based on the english grammar and vocabulary so please don't make a big deal about the words or the tone of the words used. they are not relevant to the issue which at the end of the day is that a review was removed and the reviewer didnt get any notification why it was removed.

[sozzled]

@brian: would you please clarify to whom you addressed your comments?

[brian]

everyone

[sozzled]

Hmmm ... instead of pouring water on this matter, I think you've added accelerant. I believe that I've been quite even-handed in my interpretation and I don't accept the patronising "please-understand-that-some-people-aren't-as-clairvoyant-as-me" attitude. So, no, I don't want to be tarred with this general swipe at "everyone".

I certainly have problems with the OP's claims. It's not that they're justifiable; it's because they're unverifiable. On the one hand we're being asked to accept—on faith—that something happened because the JED team were narked by views expressed in one person's product review (well, that just happens); on the other hand, were being asked to accept—also on faith—that the JED review process is tainted.

My real problem in these problems is not that one side is right and the other side is wrong or that either side has misrepresented the intentions of the other because of a language barrier. My problem is that JED reviews are specifically not for settling commercial disputes and, time and again, the JED review team weigh in to remove negative reviews because there are indications of commercial disputes within them. To be totally candid, I would prefer the JED team to butt out of removing reviews—astroturfed and competitor-targeted—and leave them alone except where the reviews are used for spam or they contain offensive language.

Let's have more reviews, not less of them. (I realise that's a sizeable generalisation in its own right but I'll live with the consequences).

In the meantime, however, I don't believe that @brian has significantly contributed to this discussion except to pontificate how everyone (including me) has mistreated this topic.

[ooffick]

Mod note: can I please ask everyone to remain civil, we do not need to create a fight.

[sozzled]

*** a little off-topic ***

I am being civil, polite and respectful to other members; I hope that's always the case. I just wish that people wouldn't categorise me as behaving like "everyone". We could make more headway if we didn't have people make generalised characterisations of other people and have to deal with these kinds of distractions.

We could improve this discussion if we didn't have people telling us how to behave as mature adults. I'm not here to create friction but, trust me, I will respond when someone asserts they're better than "everyone" else. If, however, I've offended anyone then I apologise without reservation.

*** end off-topic ***

[Webdongle]

The rudeness and accusations made by the OP are blatant and obvious. The fact that English is not the OP's first language is no excuse for the tone of the OP.

There have been many times in the past where the actions of one or two members of the JED team have been questionable ... but the responses by hdouglas are reasonable. hdouglas has also explained there is a system in place to question the decision ... I would suggest the OP use that system before continuing that decision.

[romagromov]

The rudeness and accusations made by the OP are blatant and obvious. The fact that English is not the OP's first language is no excuse for the tone of the OP.

There have been many times in the past where the actions of one or two members of the JED team have been questionable ... but the responses by hdouglas are reasonable. hdouglas has also explained there is a system in place to question the decision ... I would suggest the OP use that system before continuing that decision.

Have you read my next posts?
Or just blindly believe the moderators?
They wanted to spit on us.
They have rule 6.5 - so, no matter who is right. This is not freedom internet. It's dictatorship.
They removed review - so now there is no evidence, only rule 6.5.
And of course, I can't add new review. I am punished, but no one knows for what. Only I know that for nothing.



P.S. Please, carefully read all my posts in this topic.

[Webdongle]

I have read your posts and don't like the tone of them.

As for

...
They have rule 6.5 - so, no matter who is right. This is not freedom internet. It's dictatorship....

They permit people to join JED if someone doesn't like the rules they are free to leave. That is freedom ... anything else and you encroach on their freedom of choice.

[romagromov]

They permit people to join JED if someone doesn't like the rules they are free to leave.

Yes, and I was a human, that posting reviews on JED during 7 years.
And "somebody" remove review without ANY reasons (there is no evidence).
So, you believe them, I believe in myself.
Yes, I'm free to leave JED. And I'll do it.
My mind still is:
1. They got money for this (propably).
2. They made it by mistake, but hides behind the rule 6.5, because they do not even remember what was written in this review.

About

don't like the tone of them

Please make several steps:
1. Purchase described component.
2. Wait 3 days to get it working.
3. Get it NOT normally working.
4. Wait 7 days for support.
5. Get it working and test it.
6. Discover that it does not have needed abilities (impossible to check it without purchasing).
7. Create new ticket and wait several days.
8. Open JED to write review.
9. Write review. Write review = waste time and make JED better.
9. Discover you review removed without any reasons.
10. Try to write new review and discover that it's impossible.
11. Create topic in Joomla forum.
12. Get answer, that review "did not meet many of the other criteria", but no one knows what it is about.
13. Check your tone.