Is being "trusted" just a function of time?

Michael B. I have not given any thoughts until you raised the questions. I have been kind of happy that I have grown in levels and became trusted reviewer in Site Jabber. The way the reviews have been voted has been changed several times since I joined the web site and this also makes me to be a little bit confused. You are right that there is some pattern of how you grow in levels (the more reviews and the more positive votes per review seems to make you "climb the ladder") but what makes you trusted?! I don't know!?

I found this when I came here to learn about the site.

FAQ: What are Reviewer Levels? http://www.sitejabber.com/faq#levels

I wonder if I'm going to fall into the category "If you trust this person,then I got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to ,sell you",just curious

So is it just time spent?

Wow Arthur D. I just looked at your profile. You're on fire! You've definitely done your fair share of contributing to sitejabber. I'm surprised you're not trusted yet. With all of the reviews, comments, and forum posts you've done I'm sure it must just be a matter of time now before you become trusted.

I wonder if it's just an admin option for the sitejabber admin folks.

Sitejabber Admin 1 - "Do you trust this Arthur D. guy?"
Sitejabber Admin 2 - "I don't know. I've never really liked the name 'Arthur'"
Sitejabber Admin 1 - "Hmmm, good point. I guess I won't check the 'trusted' box for him then."

;)

It's odd because the trusted reward isn't very transparent, nowhere on this site is it clarified how its awarded and by what criteria. Is it just reserved for site admin and their friends?

There needs to be more transparentcy, people need to know how these 'trusted reviewers' earned their stripes!

So, admin if you're reading this, could you reply? The link posted above is pretty much useless. (Although, with no reply in four months I very much doubt they will)

or

If you're a trusted reviewer, tell us how you got your status.

I have also asked about the "levels" and "Trust" with support (crickets).

While I am not very active in posting I do try to make the site reviews. My only reason for being here is hopefully my reviews of scamming/phishing sites will prevent someone from being scammed. Information about a sites reputation is free and somewhat easy to find, so being scammed should be hard.

SiteJabber's Top Reviewers (http://www.sitejabber.com/rankings)

Some "Trusted" reviewers are listed as:

Reviews Votes Level Firsts to Review
31 140 5 30
32 146 5 15
34 126 5 17
35 137 5 31
40 135 5 12

While some users are listed as a "New Reviewer" with the below stats:

Reviews Votes Level Firsts to Review
34 227 5 2
53 156 6 33
129 262 8 93
285 296 9 272

With the stats of the above "Trusted" users then minimal requirements to be "Trusted" should be:

Reviews Votes Level Firsts to Review
31 140 5 30

But I think Arthur D. said it best; "just reserved for site admin and their friends"

A user being "Trusted" has no merit or weight with me, as there is nothing consistent between being "Trusted" and a "New Reviewer".

Note: This post is about SiteJabber, not the users.

It may be as the Conversation shows: ""trusted" just a function of time?"

Most of the "Trusted" users are from 2007/2009 (must be when the site started) and some haven't posted since 2010.

Reviews Votes Level Firsts Member
to Review Since
31 140 5 30 Dec 2007
32 146 5 15 Feb 2010
34 126 5 17 Jul 2010
35 137 5 31 Aug 2009
40 135 5 12 Dec 2009

While some users are listed as a "New Reviewer" with the below stats:

Reviews Votes Level Firsts Member
to Review Since
34 227 5 2 Aug 2011
53 156 6 33 Aug 2011
129 262 8 93 Jun 2011
285 296 9 272 Jun 2011

But I think Arthur D. said it best; "just reserved for site admin and their friends"

Note: This post is about SiteJabber, not the users.

Mai N, nice research, and with your input to the site you would have thought that you would be trusted, you've clearly put a lot of time a effort into this site.

It seems there is massive inconsistancy in the trusted reward and it really needs clarification from admin, as an honest review site, Sitejabber should be above any suspicion of acting conspicuously. How could somebody who hasn't posted in over a year still have the accreditation?

Mai N, have you asked the admin directly about this issue before? If so what was their response? If any. It's all looking a bit shadey.

I've messaged the site, so I guess we'll await their response.

I found this site when searching for more reputation review sites to post my reviews. So I joined to add my reviews and to help increase their website database; helps to keep site searchers informed.

I looked for how levels and trust is obtained but couldn't find anything. So I just post my reviews.

What I have found (from the sites email):
Level 1 reviewer - Write 3+ Reviews - then can upload extra photos to your profile page
Level 5 reviewer - I think opened the review URL's to make them "click-able".
(I deleted the others)

About the site: "SiteJabber is made possible by a grant from the National Science Foundation"

Which is why most support questions/recommendations for the site go unanswered. I have even recommended that the forums "Category's" be increased to add more descriptive "Category's" to help users post and to find posts easier before it started to grow larger (crickets), and now it's large.

If the site was paying it's bills through its users things would be popping, as the other sites are.

Just my pennies...

PS:

Followers to this Conversation. Do you still have the "Level Up" email? If so post them here and we can start a Conversation showing Level requirements!


What I have found (from the sites email):

Level 1 reviewer - Write 3+ Reviews - then can upload extra photos to your profile page
Level 5 reviewer - I think opened the review URL's to make them "click-able".

What do you have?

What I have noticed is that everyone who got "trusted reviewer" have been on the site since 2009. There are some people who are only level 3, but hasn't made a single review since early 2010, and has "Trusted Reviewer".

My thoughts are that the Admins had manually chosen those people to be "Trusted Reviewer" long ago, but since then, they have not come back to select more people for the status.

@Bess Z.

That's the point I think everyone is making. Is it time based, or "who you know". For timed base one could just reach level 5 and stop and they will become trusted.

Being nothing is posted about the levels or being trusted. I think it was originally planned to be a combination of everything; Reviews, Votes, Comments/Posts, Member since.

What I have found (from the sites email):

Level 1 reviewer - Write 3+ Reviews - then can upload extra photos to your profile page
Level 2 reviewer -
Level 3 reviewer -
Level 4 reviewer -
Level 5 reviewer - Opened the review URL's to make them "click-able".
Level 6 reviewer -
Level 7 reviewer -
Level 8 reviewer -
Level 9 reviewer -
Level 10 reviewer -

Reviews per day: 20

Anyone else, what do you have?

Mai: If "Is it time based, or "who you know"" is everyone else's point, then it certainly is not mine. I'm saying it's not at all a function of time or who you know.

It's something the SJ admins manually gave to certain reviewers long ago, who they deemed worthy of the title, regardless of whether the admins knew the person personally or not at all. You can be a member of SJ for 100 more years, but until the admins decide to give away more "Trusted Reviewer" statuses, we are not getting them.

Level 2 - Arthur,

You're movin' on up! Based on your contributions to the SiteJabber community, you've earned yourself a higher standing among reviewers. Your new reviewer level is 2.

You can check yourself out here:
http://www.sitejabber.com/users/arthurd2

Or read more about leveling here:
http://www.sitejabber.com/faq#levels


Same again for Level 3 below


Level 3 - Arthur,

You're movin' on up! Based on your contributions to the SiteJabber community, you've earned yourself a higher standing among reviewers. Your new reviewer level is 3.

You can check yourself out here:
http://www.sitejabber.com/users/arthurd2

Or read more about leveling here:
http://www.sitejabber.com/faq#levels


Keep it up!
Your impressed SiteJabber Team

I'm going to keep on at them, to get a response. Because if is as Bess Z says 'SJ admins manually gave to certain reviewers long ago' then that really is very shady. What qualifications do the admin have to decide who should be trusted?

Can anybody following this thread remember when they became trusted?

Perhaps I'll start PMing the trusted reviewers to see if we can get a timeline.

Someone should have left this one alone.

@Bess Z. - said: I'm saying it's not at all a function of time or who you know." "It's something the SJ admins manually gave to certain reviewers long ago, who they deemed worthy of the title, regardless of whether the admins knew the person personally or not at all."

"It's something the SJ admins manually gave to certain reviewers long ago, who they deemed worthy of the title" - Then it's "Who-You-Know"!!!

"SJ admins manually gave to certain reviewers long ago" - Seven months is not that long ago...
A "Trusted Reviewer - level: 4 - Member since: March 2011"

Overall then what I see it's "Who-You-Know". A "Trusted Reviewed" has nothing to do with the active participation within SiteJabber at all or the contributions made to the site, long ago or now. "It's something the SJ admins manually gave to certain reviewers long ago, who they deemed worthy of the title"

The "Trusted" makes NO sense!! In the advertisements for SiteJabber (all over the internet) they say that site reviews are also from "Trusted" SiteJabber reviewers and that the "Trust" is obtained through participation in the site and reviews (something close to that).

When in reality "trusted" its the group of users who had something to do with the initial SiteJabber setup and their friends.

Then the internet advertisement needs to be changed to say "Come and join SiteJabber and write some site reviews to help fight internet fraud. Then meet and become friends with our staff (you will need to write a few reviews to make it look good) then we will give you the "SiteJabber Trusted Reviewer" status", only obtained by us if deemed worthy of the title!

Trusted Reviewer compared to a New Reviewer

Trusted Reviewer________New Reviewer
Reviewer level: 4_______Reviewer level: 9
Level 43% complete______Level 57% complete
025 Reviews_____________308 Reviews
097 Votes_______________308 Votes
065 Very Helpful________190 Very Helpful
003 Funny_______________009 Funny
000 Fraud Buster________098 Fraud Buster
001 Great Find__________011 Great Find
028 Well Said___________000 Well Said
070 Comments/Posts______048 Comments/Posts
009 Fans________________007 Fans
308 Profile Views_______443 Profile Views
016 Firsts to Review____295 Firsts to Review
Member: March 2011______Member: June 2011

I see nothing which shows a user who has obtained the "Trust" status within SiteJabber as having any merit associated with that "Trust" status other than knowing the sites admin! So the "Trusted Reviewer" is just an indicator that they know the sites admin, now or then, right!


What I have found (from the sites email):

Level 01 reviewer - Write 3+ Reviews - then can upload extra photos to your profile page
Level 02 reviewer - No Change
Level 03 reviewer - No Change
Level 04 reviewer -
Level 05 reviewer - Opens the review URL's to make them active/click-able.
Level 06 reviewer -
Level 07 reviewer -
Level 08 reviewer -
Level 09 reviewer -
Level 10 reviewer -

Site reviews allowed per day: 20

Trusted Reviewer Status - Obtained through normal communication with the sites admin. A "Who-You-Know" status obtained through SiteJabber admin.

Anyone else, what do you have??

@Arthur D., good idea! I'm going to ask my friend TN, she probably knows something since she's been a member since 2008 ^__^ I will let you know her response! I'll ask also an admin and see if they can't divulge any information :D

@Mai, it's just difference in semantics, is it not? You're getting pretty worked up over a couple words I said, and I don't understand why. I'm just going to let it go and agree to disagree :)

@Bess Z. - "You're getting pretty worked up over a couple words I said"

It's just everyone has an answer except to the one asked.

I don't let the little things bother me, I couldn't care less how the levels and trust are given. But if a site issues levels/trust to its users then they should divulge how it's given. And I will venture to say that there are other readers asking the same question!

After reading this conversation and knowing there is no merit to being trusted I wouldn't want the "Trusted" label cause everyone would know it wasn't earned... it was just given!

With that I bid you all adieu.

they need a much better system for the trust rating. I agree with everything said here. Here i thought i was actually making progress towards it :(

You are, one final step; email support and say Hi!!!

@Mai N - LOL

Hi Gang: If it's of any consequence, I remember when I first came to Sitejabber. It seems like forever ago, and I have seen the site go through many evolutions and upgrades in a year and a half. I believe that becoming a "trusted reviewer" was a combination of all the different types of sites I had reviewed (many from personal experience), my input to the admin folks as they upgraded and improved the site, my catching scammers who came here (you'll see many "1 post hit-and-run reviews" by outsiders) just looking to get people to go to their counterfeit products websites or whatever. It looks like the process is a bit slower and more deliberate now, as far as moving up thru the levels and hitting the "trusted reviewer" level. But there a LOT more people here now. So my advice would be to review sites consistently (several per week) and participate in the forums and other areas of the website where you can contribute. I don't know the formula, I'm just relating what I did and how I did it. Hope this helps.

Thanks Frank C. for the information.

I came here to post scam site reviews and I did look for how levels and trust was obtained but couldn't find anything. So I just post my reviews and go on.

The Conversation started as: "I was curious how you become a "trusted" reviewer on site jabber", and for those reviews who have braved the replies and posted here what they "think" being "Trusted" is, I say thanks.

As I posted before: "Being nothing is posted about the levels or being trusted. I think it was originally planned to be a combination of everything; Reviews, Votes, Comments/Posts, Member since."

But I "think" the answer should come from the "Site's Admin". They should just come out and say they really don't have an established formula to base the "Trusted Reviewer" on, they just manually gave/give it.

Site Admin: It's ok to "manually" give the "Trusted Reviewer" status to reviewers. And I don't think the SiteJabber reviewers/users will mind that you do it "manually". Just say how you will do it, be consistent, establish Trust level goals to meet, and post/publish it so users will know that a "Trusted Reviewer" has meet those requirements and what they need to do.

Currently for me, a user being a "Trusted Reviewer" who has little to no activity on the site has no merit or weight, as there is currently nothing consistent between being "Trusted Reviewer" and a "New Reviewer" other than they new the Admin.

Example of two SiteJabber reviewers:

TRUSTED REVIEWER___________NEW REVIEWER
Reviewer level: 11_________Reviewer level: 10
Level 20% complete_________Level 34% complete
101 Reviews________________370 Reviews
404 Votes__________________346 Votes
385 Very Helpful___________227 Very Helpful
1 Funny____________________9 Funny
2 Fraud Buster_____________99 Fraud Buster
9 Great Find_______________11 Great Find
7 Well Said________________0 Well Said
36 Comments/Posts__________51 Comments/Posts
38 Fans____________________7 Fans
1,553 Profile Views________493 Profile Views
63 Firsts to Review________355 Firsts to Review
Member since: Feb 2010_____Member since: June 2011

That's the point I, and I think others are making. Establish and post/publish what it takes/means to be a "Trusted Reviewer" so site users will know the requirements.

Here's something to consider:

There are a number of "hidden" algorithms on the internet, not just the parameters for determining "Trusted Reviewer" status on this site. The most famous one is Google...they have kept their search engine algorithm a secret since the beginning. And although there is a lot made of "Search Engine Optimization" (SEO) to push a website's rankings, no one really know the precise requirements. Anchor text links, site traffic, relevant content~all of these apply and contribute to the ranking of your website, but there is no known exact formula.

I find this site to be anomalous in that way also. Just because you review a high QUANTITY of websites, that would be part of the equation. Concurrently, the response to those reviews (votes, comments, etc.) would also seem to be a component. I'm not certain that the conspiracy theory of "getting to "know" the admin folks is a valid idea. I mean hell, I don't know them. They will respond to you if you send an email relative to content on the site (reporting what seems to be a fraudulent review or blatant advertisement disguised as a review). That's all I have ever done. And I didn't come here until 2010, there are others who were here much earlier. So I think using a term like "shady" is inappropriate, or at least presumptuous. Google is the "shadiest" of all by that comparison, and they sell for $500 per share. I find that amusing, as they provide ZERO customer service for any of their products...and I use them all including AdWords, AdSense, Google Mail, Analytics etc.

Perhaps there is some qualifier or activity level that is being worked on currently to establish something more cohesive for this question. I have no idea. To all for whom this would apply, I will say this: Just as true charity is anonymous, and doing a good deed is its own reward, you should all feel good about participating in this website. If you save even ONE person from getting ripped off its worth it. I mean, why else are you here? If its for recognition or to feed an identity crisis by achieving "levels" of performance, you might want to rethink doing this at all. I would gladly forfeit my "Trusted Reviewer" status, I never asked for it. My satisfaction comes from folks who thank me for steering them away from danger, or providing them with a cool product or website that makes their life a little easier. If a subject like this gets you THAT twisted, perhaps a little less computer time might be the answer. Cheers!

I think its the fact that you try to be an active and helpful contributor and the trusted factor seems like it has no way to be achieved. Yes were all here to help, but that is kind of a reward that is dangled but never received.

@Frank C.

Frank C. said: "There are a number of "hidden" algorithms on the internet, not just the parameters for determining "Trusted Reviewer" status on this site. The most famous one is Google...they have kept their search engine algorithm a secret since the beginning."

You are correct, but no one is asking SiteJabber to "give up" their ""hidden" algorithm for determining "Trusted Reviewer" status on this site". Just write/post what the requirements are for determining a "Trusted Reviewer" so a user who joins SiteJabber would know what "A" "Trusted Reviewer" Archived to obtain that "Trusted Reviewer" rating status!

Frank C. said: "The most famous one is Google...they have kept their search engine algorithm a secret since the beginning."

You are correct, but even Google has a "Help" file for how to use their basic Search system.
{http://code.google.com/apis/soapsearch/reference.html#searchrequest}

Type in Google Search:
allinsite: "SiteJabber Trusted Reviewer" and the only thing you will find is this conversation...

Frank C. said: "Concurrently, the response to those reviews (votes, comments, etc.) would also seem to be a component."

You are correct, and as I said before:
Mai N. said: "Being nothing is posted about the levels or being trusted. I think it was originally planned to be a combination of everything; Reviews, Votes, Comments/Posts, Member since."

and,

Mai N. said: "as there is currently nothing consistent between being "Trusted Reviewer" and a "New Reviewer" other than they new the Admin."

I say this due to the "only" response in this conversation concerning being a "Trusted Reviewer", is that they new or was in contact with the admin!! No post from anyone that they did this, or did this...

Frank C. said: "If a subject like this gets you THAT twisted, perhaps a little less computer time might be the answer."

Well I am responding to this conversation just as you have; so are we not both getting "twisted" over this.

Nothing is preventing the sites developers/admin from posting to Their Forum, "this conversation"!! In fact this conversation would probably end if they would post anything about how levels/trust is obtained for a user, or that it's in development. I think that was the point of the conversation when it started... "Is being "trusted" just a function of time?"...

As I said before:
Mai N. said: "Being nothing is posted about the levels or being trusted. I think it was originally planned to be a combination of everything; Reviews, Votes, Comments/Posts, Member since."

BUT, there is way to much inconsistency between being "Trusted Reviewer" and a "New Reviewer". And I think everyone would agree, even you!

Frank C. said: "Concurrently, the response to those reviews (votes, comments, etc.) would also seem to be a component."

WHERE?

Trusted Reviewer - Level 2
Level-Reviews-Votes-Comments-Firsts_to_Review
- 2 ---- 10 -------- 32 ------- 0 ------------- 7
Member since: Apr 2008
Last Review: Oct 2009
Last Comment: None

Trusted Reviewer - Level 2
Level-Reviews-Votes-Comments-Firsts_to_Review
- 2 ---- 18 -------- 51 ------- 0 ------------- 10
Member since: May 2009
Last Review: May 2010
Last Comment: None

Trusted Reviewer - Level 5
Level-Reviews-Votes-Comments-Firsts_to_Review
- 5 ---- 31 ------ 140 ------- 1 ------------- 30
Member since: Dec 2007
Last Review: Jul 2009
Last Comment: Apr 2010

This one I can understand, even If they got it at level 2!

Trusted Reviewer - Level 12
Level-Reviews-Votes-Comments-Firsts_to_Review
12 -- 144 ------- 502 ----- 262 ---------- 91
Member since: Mar 2008
Last Review: May 2011
Last Comment: Sept 2011

"New Reviewers" just don't match with the trusted above:

"New Reviewer":
Level-Reviews-Votes-Comments-Firsts_to_Review
- 5 ----- 34 ------ 227 ------ 6 ------------- 2
- 6 ----- 63 ------ 170 --- 106 ------------ 40
- 8 --- 129 ------ 262 ------ ? ------------- 93
- 9 --- 141 ------ 289 ----- 32 ------------ 101

Even the "Average Rating" for a user is not consistent between a Trusted Reviewer and a New Reviewer. So is there a system is the main question being asked.

Mai N. said: "Being nothing is posted about the levels or being trusted. I think it was originally planned to be a combination of everything; Reviews, Votes, Comments/Posts, Member since."

Mai N. said: "But if a site issues levels/trust to its users then they should divulge how it's given. And I will venture to say that there are other readers asking the same question!"

So is there a system, is the main question being asked.

@Frank C - They haven't ever responded to me.

I've emailed all of their sitejabber.com email addresses, PMed them, posted on their facebook wall, asked question on the 'question and answer' section on this site, tweeted them, left comments on their blogs and private messaged the site creators on Facebook.

But yet to get a response. All of these messages couldn't have got lost, surely!

I'm thinking about holdiing off on my reviews until I get a response. But I don't think I'm every likely to become trusted, because I'm pretty sure asking all these 'difficult' questions isn't the way to become 'friends' with admin!

@Mai N - Your continued research and time is appreciated.


I will continue to ask and hopefully one day, we will get an answer.

http://www.sitejabber.com/users/akonib

This user is prime example of somebody who shouldn't be trusted, they posted ten reviews on 13th August 2008 and haven't been back since!

How is this any different than a new user? Clearly the trusted function is flawed/broken/in-development the admin need to clarify.

I'm pretty sure the Trusted system is undergoing some reevaluation since some users took the "power" directly to their head and started openly flaming actual businesses and harassing their customers.

Trusted "reward" seems like a unique concept which is receiving a lot of interest and seems like a very good potential tool to promote user involvement; since SiteJabber is relying heavily on quality user input, rather than 1 review hit-n-runs.

Trusted reviewer posts receive prime placement, and command respect from anybody evaluating the site for the first time. It is unfortunate that the administration seems to be stalled with handing out of the Trusted reviewer badge as of recent. But in all end, I don't think quoting numbers and statistics is the correct approach.
Frank C is right in saying that if you are truly here to protect consumers, then doing the right thing is a reward on its own.

And in all honesty, Trusted reviewer is not necessary in the long run, and only poses grief to actual business who got bombed on SJ for whatever reason. Take for example the business I work for - we are a small sized business serving a world-wide specific audience. We provide very specific technical items, and naturally having to deal with lots of customers will generate inevitable complaints. The trusted review on our front page is very prominent, it was posted as a follow up to a Trusted reviewer who later got banned for stepping over the line, it is not from a purchasing customer, and is a very harsh summary of what went on in the beginning of this year.

And although we have over 200 positive reviews from legitimate customers, each one could be backed up by a tracking number and a satisfied customer at the recipient address, the "Trusted reviewer" post about our company is on the first page in the most visible position.

So my point is that SJ is trying to balance the trustworthiness of a consistent reviewer versus a hit-n-runner (positive or negative), but in the long run the current (circa 2008) reward system should be reconsidered, because the aim of SiteJabber is to generate organic reviews for websites, and Trusted reviewer is the only counter-measure for fake reviews.

I don't think SJ needs trusted reviewers in a sense of: Admin looks at the user's stats and marks them with a check-box, it should be more of a dynamic system, granting premium placement to higher level reviewer, and not drawing such a black-n-white line between New Reviewer and Trusted Reviewer, maybe have an automatic "Valued Contributor" once the reviewer submits a certain amount of quality reviews.

Redit: But in all end, I don't think quoting numbers and statistics is !!!NOT!!! the correct approach.

P.S. Need an edit button, plz

Err, never mind the edit, the original statement has the correct gist, I need more coffee =)

Well said Ellis B.,

As said, I figured the "trust" was originally planned to be a combination of everything; Reviews, Votes, Comments/Posts, Member since." Or even the "Average Rating" for a user.

I posted Trusted/New reviewer numbers just to show that there is nothing consistent between being trusted and new, due to some saying it was based on a users contribution to the site, which don't seem to be the case. And other saying the admin gave it, which is more likely the case.

But the SiteJabber Ranking page shows:
"SiteJabber's Top Reviewers" {http://www.sitejabber.com/ranking}
"Our top reviewers have helped hundreds of consumers avoid bad websites and find good ones."

This is a motivational and promotion page for SiteJabber reviewers, and for the visitors checking a sites review made on SiteJabber. But those "top reviewers have helped hundreds of consumers" is just a listing for only some of the "Trusted Reviewers" and some of them have been inactive on the site for years (over 2 years) and they are still "helping hundreds of consumers".

So does this mean that all of those "New Reviewer" who has reached Level 9, Reviewed 141 sites, Voted 289 times, Commented 32 times, Firsts to Review 101 times and has an Average Rating of 3.82 who has also been active and contributed to the site 3 times more than a level 2 Trusted Reviewer all this in only a few months is less "trusted" than a level 2 trusted reviewer who has been inactive on the site for years??

Ellis B. said: "it should be more of a dynamic system, granting premium placement to higher level reviewer, and not drawing such a black-n-white line between New Reviewer and Trusted Reviewer, maybe have an automatic "Valued Contributor" once the reviewer submits a certain amount of quality reviews".

You are correct and it's what all of these posts are pointing out. This is where the "Average Rating" could come into play. Assuming it's an average rating of a reviewers combined SiteJabber stats. Then when a reviewer reaches a predetermined "Average Rating" they are automatically marked as a "Trusted Reviewer". Then Everyone (reviewer or visitor) would know what it takes or took to become or reach a "Trusted Reviewer" status and that would also entice more reviewer activity.

But, even the reviewers "Average Rating" would need to be revised before it could be used due to its not even consistent between reviewers.

New Reviewer Average Rating - 4.77
Trusted Reviewer Average Rating - 4.17 & 4.05

Again this is not toward the users, it intended to show the SiteJabber admin that something is broken and should be fixed.


Side note:
I have submitted to support about the much needed "edit" function, and to improve the "SiteJabber Forum Categories" before they become to large and unorganized. Well we can see that these didn't happen!!!

In all fairness to SJ, and don't get me wrong, I am in no way approving of SJ's less than heartwarming administration techniques, they have been actively working on the site, with notable changes being implemented on a consistent basis.

However it is rather unnerving, that the support/administration has very little presence on the site publicly, and even when one goes through the e-mail process, the outcome of the request is usually determined by public actions, rather than a comprehensive acknowledgement.
What I mean is: out of let's say 5 e-mails I've had the pleasure of sending to support, 1 would get a reply, 4 would get an action, and 1 would go unexplained.
I believe that it is SOP @ SJ, which is indicative of a high volume of support e-mails, vs available support time: i.e. people answering support are not exactly getting paid to do it.

It is a very hard dilemma to deal with on a consistent basis, since SJ is not oriented towards making profit, like ResellerRatings.com . It is a profound problem found in all "open source" projects and volunteer communities - people lose interest, and no longer contribute time.

I think SiteJabber would benefit from a paid position of a community leader, responsible for planning of the community direction, review guidelines, business interaction and user involvement.
Overall I think it's a problem of lost interest for founders, and perhaps unclear funding strategy by the NSF.
SJ deserves the NSF money, but it may be difficult for them to prove the necessity of further investment, since SJ looks and feels like it is up to par with it's original mission statement.

Yes, changes even small ones shows their active support to the site and it's users. Even a small change like arranging or organizing this forum. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to add a few more Categories as it has been recommended through email to support and in several forum areas. And I don't believe it would take more than a few minutes to do it (it doesn't on other forum platforms), but nothing gets done when users request simple changes.

I think the site has taken off faster and more than it was originally expected. I do think most of the sites "trust" to reviewers was given at the beginning to promote the function, test the "show and tell" pages, and demonstrate the concept of having "Trusted Reviewers" within the site. It's called "selling the product" or "justifying a job".

I don't think the site needs a "paid position", it just needs a more committed support staff, or maybe a new one with new ideas and a better focus on the sites needed changes and its users.

Well you build a concise and idealistic point here, Mai.
However, changes small or large take time, so I have to argue that even though certain perfectly logical and valid seeming suggestions may have have been ignored (I like to mark those as "put away for later"), SJ staff are present.

This site would not be able to function with-out daily forum clean up, and to some extent review validation, otherwise it would certainly come into disfunction with frivolous advertisements, spam and review forgery. And speaking from my own experience, seemingly good intentioned suggestions can have unforeseen consequences, or be clashing with bigger update plans.

SJ did not have a forum half a year ago (it was closed down for some time for rebuild) , and have the staff not reopened it, you would have never came up with suggestions for the forum. Perhaps they are planning to change the forums even more. Personally I would suggest they implement a BB forum, rather than building their own solution - but who knows, maybe they will come up with something even better.

Anyways, the point I'm trying to finalize here, is that users should not be discouraged to participate on this site to the best of their ability, you seem to have plenty to contribute, and user should continue their support in the capacity they have already contributed.

You have marked down a few dozen sites, imagine even one person checks your review on one of them rogue pharmacies - you would be directly responsible in preventing such hypothetical user to not give up their personal information, to not have a fraudulent record on their credit, and to not rip their hair out, battling with their bank once they realize that bank is holding them liable for an exuberant amount of money they did not take out credit for.

It's all perspective, SJ is fairly new, only 3 years old, it has a long way to go, but it is already a long way in; celebrate it for what it is now, and don't get mad for it not yet being what you think it could be =)

I am "that guy below" and I have no idea how I became "trusted" other than the fact that if something is bullshit, I say it's bullshit. I don't know anyone who is SJ management so that shoots that theory in the ass.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't worry about it. I'm sure we all have better things to do with our time than to ponder why "they" got "trusted status" while "those people" did not.

Gun665

Sorry Gun S., I didn't use your profile info anywhere. They were mainly inactive users.

This conversation, while the "main" question will never be answered, points out where SJ should improve the site. From this conversation they should have a grasp that there are questions concerning the "levels" and Trust" being asked.

SJ is going through "growing pains" and I am sure there are main/small updates waiting till the next major release.

Would be nice if there was someplace they would post site information for the users.

All the information posted is freely available to anybody, just by clicking on their profile.

If the admin would bother to respond to me, I'll stop posting here.

@Arthur D

"Crickets" - it's the only thing you will hear!!!

Way to bump the old topic, I was sure it was long gone already...

Its a dried up well without support/site comments.

Kind of shows "the" sites reputation, lack of support involvement.

Or they are still cleaning of their shoes from stepping in it!!!