Bitcoin Forum

We launched a new pay to review service for our members.

I am in need of some feedback from advertisers on the system and how they like it.

If you own a BitCoin website and would like 25 reviews, I will personally pay for the campaign in exchange for some feedback.

Send me a private message or reply to this thread with your username and URL  if interested.  You must be a registered member at http://www.bitvisit.com

First 10 who respond win!

Thanks!

-BitVisit!



http://bitvisit.com/members/review.jpg

Not a registered member, but I'm happy to review bitvisit if you do a test campaign for coinchat.

You can even use your referral link and enter into the 10 BTC compo.

Sorry the system requires it to be a registered account with a valid email so it can send review notifications. If you register an account I would be happy to give you the free campaign.

I would love to test your service.

Registered username: jaywaka2713
URL: http://myownaddress.openbtcshop.com

Campaign Created and Running. Thanks for trying it out!

Did a quick bug test and tried to review my own site. Failed. Your code looks sound dude!

btctrinkets.com
Registered username: Isokivi

Campaign Setup and Running. Thanks For Trying it out!

Need a few more!  Are you brave enough to have your site reviewed? ???

Bump

Have 3 more campaigns to give away

I'll do it!

Raptorak
http://coinfaucets.tk

Thanks, :).

Campaign is up and running. Thanks!

Got my first review but it was more spammy than anything (I sent a response to the email to report my reasoning as well). Wish people would take things more seriously.

Alright, I want to post a public review and a suggestion for the site. Please understand that this is NOT an attack on the site, nor bitvisit himself. This is solely with the people that are doing the reviews.

Out of 18 reviews I have gotten for my site (http://coinfaucets.tk), only two. Yes, that is *two* of the people have taken it seriously. Sadly, one of those didn't even read the page though (they gave a real review, unlike giving all random ratings and then saying something like "perfect site!" while rating most things low), and instead made suggestions based on features that are "missing" even when they are on the front page...

One person actually went through and evaluated the site, and their information was helpful. I would love to get in contact with this person if there was a way to do it. Rather than call them out directly, it was the person who ended their post with "Good start, but keep going." That person (if they read this and choose to disclose their identity that is fine, but I did not want to do it without permission and I have no idea how to get in contact with them) was the only person I could see that did what they were supposed to. Out of 18 people. That's a 5.56% rate of people who actually care, and that's pretty sad.

Guys, if you are going to review someone's website, take it seriously. Posting random crap or bringing up things that have nothing to do with the website does the owner no good. Throwing up random ratings and then praising how perfect things are does no good.

I would have NO issues if someone rated the site all 1's (the lowest possible) but actually gave input on why they feel that way. You can't simply say "I don't like it" because then I have no idea why. What part is it you don't like? What would make it better? Liking something is subjective; what I like you might not. Therefore I can't possibly sit around guessing at what you may or may not like. That's the whole point of the site reviews to begin with.

So my rating here is going to be pretty low for the rating service and how it's currently run. Again, that is not bitvisit's fault, it is the fault of the people who are spamming through the reviews hoping to get easy money off it. I sincerely hope that bitvisit keeps up with these and starts revoking earnings from people who do that. I sent him some of the reviews I got that were pretty ridiculous and I'm hopeful that he will deal with them. Realistically, he should be removing the earnings from 17/18 of the people that have reviewed the site so far. I'm not asking for more free reviews, either. I think the person I listed above that did what they should have deserves the payment for the 17 that showed they didn't care.

Just registered.

I'd like a campaign for coinchat.org. If I get helpful feedback, I probably will purchase. If you support inputs.io, I will purchase.

Have to agree with ranlo

I had better luck with my reviewers and out of a total of 23 I had 4/5 that I would consider acceptable and the rest were clearly people doing it solely for the money. Leaving reviews like;

'Keep up the good work!'
'looks good'
'WORST EVER' - despite leaving high reviews

I think a min character rule needs to be enforced to at least 20/25 characters. Perhaps a new feature could be the choice of the minimum characters to be written can be chosen by the webmasters. They can chose min 20 char for BTCxxx a review, min 100 char for BTCxxxx and 250 for min BTCxxxxx

That way at least people have a choice on how well their sites are reviewed.

My other idea is to dispute a review, if you pay for someone to write a 100 or 250 character review and they come back with some repeated characters x 100 or they just write complete bullshit, you should be allowed to put their payment on hold until they have written a proper review.

The rating idea is a good one and it is important to know how users view your site. But knowing that I score from 3 - 10 in errors really doesnt help me bug test. And knowing that my contact form is from 1 - 10 is useless information. I think also adding a comment form with at least 10 characters per rating will help to justify the given scores.


Remember that you are charging for each review, currently I wouldn't pay to use this site based on the poor quality of reviews I received. I have absolutely no problem with people slandering my site if fact I would encourage it, if people could justify why.


My review for BitVisit

First Impression - 5/10 - slider is not needed and adds nothing to site content - if anything it confuses what the site is about. I found it quite difficult to sign up a top menu/sidebar menu would be a good idea. That being said the member's portal is nice and easy to navigate. Site functions well as expected started to receive traffic almost straight after campaign was set.

Navigation - 3/10 Homepage | 7/10 - Member (as above)

Content - 6/10 - Hard one to judge but there are a lot of good features that could be improved over time. Reviews are a good idea and pay per view is nice for traffic storms

Contact - 5/10 - Contact form on homepage only place I found it. Maybe would be nice on Members portal in case of any queries

Errors - 3/10 - Members portal, under review section hyperlinked table titles - would be better to add a title='title' tag so that titles are easier to understand - or just remove <a> tags completely. My point is I don't understand what authority means in this sense.

Authority - 0/10 - As above I don't understand what it means, domain authority has nothing to do with reviewing a site, perhaps it means how much you trust the site?

Layout - 5/10 - Clear and easy to navigate Member portal - Points lost for index page

Visit Again - 6/10 - Perhaps should be boolean yes/no rather than a rating, you'll either visit a site again or you won't. But it is a nice site and with some improvements could be really good for cheap reviews and traffic

Overall Score - 5/10 - Review quality really let the site down, with some work and some restrictions on what members can get away with, the site could be much better. Remember that you are asking people to part with their hard earned money to use your site for the services you offer, reviews and traffic. If your member's reviews are not up to par, no one will use it

Hope this helps

Luke

*Thank you to anyone who took the time to properly review my site - I will be going through and trying to improve the flaws that were highlighted

Thank you for the feedback.

I do have a two more free sites to add, but I do need your username and your url both..


I am kind of stuck at a crossroads here.. On one hand the better the quality and the more requirements I put in the system, the less likely people will review for the .0001 BTC they get for their review.
If I set the minimum Cost Per Review to a higher number, then the advertisers won't purchase.

It is a hard line to walk, and I will take your suggestions to heart and see what changes I can make to keep everyone happy.

As for Authority, it refers to a websites credibility and knowledge on a specific subject. Would you consider this site and authority on the subject.

If you do review some websites as a member I do spell these topics out in more detail. I will need to add more information on the advertiser side.


Thanks again!
-Bitvisit

Campaign setup and running. Thanks for trying it out!

Alright, here's an idea... and really the only way I can see this working.

Allow tiered pricing. Ex. the higher pay that's offered up, the more strict quality requirements there are. More or less creating the distinction between quality based on the price (which makes sense when you consider it).

I am really not sure how to handle that though... just figured I would toss out the idea and maybe some brainstorming could go into it or something like it.

What do you think about minimum reviews. Pay the lowest amount - expect poor quality 25 character views. Pay a bit more get 100 Characters etc

I also think being able to dispute reviews is important, bland traffic is one thing but poorly constructed reviews just to get a bit of money is different.

One last thing, is it possible to view old campaigns?

It says they last 7 days (not long enough IMO) I think it should be 3 months minimum for each old campaign so the webmaster has time to react to the changes. My campaign has already been deleted

Having a character requirement or word requirement per amount of pay would work to a point, but it still needs to be on topic. This would be resolved by allowing a built-in dispute system, or even better an actual rating system the campaign owner could run. Sort of like this:

I start up my campaign
You review my site
The review goes in to a queue for me to look at. While it is in the queue, your funds are in a "pending" state
If I accept the review, your funds are released. If I dispute it, it goes to the site owner
Site owner has final say on what to do (I hope they are fair to both parties in this)

Now, a concern would be "what if the campaign owner doesn't accept or dispute the review?" This would be resolved by setting a timer, of say... a week? If there is no response from the campaign owner in that time, the review is then automatically accepted.

I think this is the most fair system to use, and it would help keep people from doing horrible reviews. If someone was disputed a certain number of times (like 3), they would be disabled from reviewing future sites. This, of course, only matters if the dispute went in favor of the campaign owner. If the reviewer won the disputes there would be no change.



As for your question about old campaigns, I would actually prefer an unlimited time one, or even better, the ability to have a PDF and XLS of all the data emailed when the campaign is over. This would allow for easier record keeping and analyzing.

Hm...

Here is the comment that was left for you.
muy pobre

 ???

Here is the comment that was left for you.
cya there

 ::)

 Here is the comment that was left for you.
A room for improvements--layout and contact.

 ???

Here is the comment that was left for you.
WORST EVER

  ::)

Here is the comment that was left for you.
I don\'t use chats.

Then don't review.

Here is the comment that was left for you.

Site com utilidade para o mundo bitcoin mas os comentários que vi aquando a realização deste questionário, deixaram muito a desejar pois falar de hamester\'s, super mário ou até mesmo fazer comentários sobre  Chuck Norris, não é propriamente falar de assuntos relacionados com Bitcoins.

Translated: Site with usefulness to the world bitcoin but the comments I saw when conducting this survey, left much to be desired because talking Hamester \ 's super mary or even make comments about Chuck Norris, not exactly talking about issues related to Bitcoins

Actually helpful.

Here is the comment that was left for you.
Nice work

 ???

I'm going to skip the rest now. Most of them are useless and not reviews. Some of them were genuinely helpful, but that's very rare.

Heh, so far that's 3/3 of us getting crappy reviews. People who did that should really be docked for it (ex. be banned from future reviews) and have their funds removed.

Thanks for the feedback.  I will try to enlist some of these changes here this week.  Very  helpful feedback and ideas.

As for others most of the reviews are useless, for me 3/25 put in any effort and 1/25 is actually useful.

At least with you others having the same results, I don't feel so bad being so critical!

@Bitvisit, I look forward to seeing what you come up with, :). If you want to do more review copies after you get some changes done feel free to hit me up and I'll give you another run-down as to what is good and what isn't.

I think the service could be awesome if people would take it more seriously. A lot of people discount the value of real reviews; when done correctly, they are a great asset.