• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Crowd sourced product reviews: A study of evaluation standards used
【24h】

Crowd sourced product reviews: A study of evaluation standards used

机译：众包产品评论：使用的评估标准研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

People are using online product reviews and evaluations more and more (Chandler et al., 2013). As the usage of online reviews persists and more smart phone applications are created, the demand for online product review continues to increase; yet, there is no indication of the quality of these reviews. In fact, some online reviews have been found to be fraudulent and misleading. Many online product reviews come from Internet-based crowdsource organizations. Few studies have explored evaluation practices among these organizations, and as a result, it is unclear what, if any, evaluation standards are used by crowdsource reviewers, particularly those found on open, self-serve sites such as MTurk. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to determine (a) what, if any, evaluation standards are used by crowdsource organizations and their requesters, and (b) to what extent these standards adhere to the Joint Committee on Standards for Education Evaluation (JCSEE) Program Evaluation Standards (Yarbrough et al., 2011).;Descriptive, survey data was collected from 454 MTurk product reviewers. Findings indicate these product reviewers do not appear to use any standards. The MTurk product reviewers that participated in this survey are using personal, experience-based opinions as a basis for their online reviews. The literature tells us, however, these opinions are not reliable, as they change with the providers experience and knowledge of the product.;Results further indicate participants appear to not be very procedural. Document management seemed to be reviewer dependent. Moreover, open-ended follow-up questions reveal that when asked if they used more technical review designs, the majority of participants answered "often," while simultaneously indicating their reviews were based on personal experience. This result was very conflictive with survey results, and further points to a misperception that MTurk product reviewers are providing reliable online product reviews.
机译：人们越来越多地使用在线产品评论和评估（Chandler等人，2013）。随着在线评论的使用持续不断，并且创建了更多的智能手机应用程序，在线产品评论的需求持续增长。但是，没有迹象表明这些评论的质量。实际上，一些在线评论被发现具有欺诈性和误导性。许多在线产品评论来自基于Internet的众包组织。很少有研究探索这些组织中的评估实践，因此，目前尚不清楚众包评估者（特别是那些在开放的自助式网站（例如MTurk）上找到的评估者）使用了什么评估标准（如果有）。因此，本研究的目的是确定（a）众包组织及其请求者使用的评估标准（如果有），以及（b）这些标准在多大程度上符合教育评估标准联合委员会（ JCSEE）计划评估标准（Yarbrough等，2011）。；描述性的调查数据是从454位MTurk产品审阅者那里收集的。调查结果表明这些产品审阅者似乎未使用任何标准。参与该调查的MTurk产品审阅者正在使用基于经验的个人意见作为其在线审阅的基础。然而，文献告诉我们，这些观点并不可靠，因为它们会随着提供者的经验和产品知识的变化而变化。结果进一步表明，参与者似乎在程序上不是很严格。文件管理似乎取决于审阅者。此外，不限成员名额的后续问题表明，当被问及是否使用更多的技术评论设计时，大多数参与者回答“经常”，同时指出他们的评论基于个人经验。这个结果与调查结果非常矛盾，进一步表明人们误解了MTurk产品审阅者正在提供可靠的在线产品审阅。

著录项

  • 作者

    Manga, Alexander W.;

  • 作者单位

    Western Michigan University.;

  • 授予单位 Western Michigan University.;
  • 学科 Marketing.;Management.;Business administration.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2016
  • 页码 200 p.
  • 总页数 200
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号