Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
One of the first appearances of the term "review bomb" was in a 2008 Ars Technica article by Ben Kuchera describing the effect in regards to Spore, in which users left negative reviews on Amazon citing the game's perceived lackluster gameplay and digital rights management system. Kuchera wrote "Review-bombing Amazon is a particularly nasty way ...
ConsumerAffairs is an American customer review and consumer news platform that provides information for purchasing decisions around major life changes or milestones. [5] The company's business-facing division provides SaaS that allows brands to manage and analyze review data to improve their products and customer service.
Negative ion products are products which claim to release negative ions and create positive health effects, although these claims are unsupported. [1] Many also claim to protect users from 5G radiation. These claims are likewise unsubstantiated. A market has developed for these products due to conspiracy theories about 5G. [2]
With 92% negative reviews, it became the worst-rated game on Steam a day after launch, [445] and the lowest-rated game of 2021 on the review aggregator Metacritic. [446] Konami later apologised for the game's many issues and said they would work on improving it. [ 447 ]
[full citation needed] Amazon allgedly deleted negative reviews of Scientology-related items, despite the reviews' compliance with comments guidelines. [364] [365] In November 2012, it was reported that Amazon.co.uk deleted "a wave of reviews by authors of their fellow writers' books in what is believed to be a response to [a] 'sock puppet ...
It mainly suffered from bad marketing and bad build quality (caused chiefly by Edsels sharing production with Ford and Mercury models, rather than being on a dedicated assembly line). It was also released at a time when the USA was hit by a recession and demand for medium-priced large cars decreased as US consumers started buying smaller ...
The website Science-Based Medicine goes even further, claiming: "No other show on television can top The Dr. Oz Show for the sheer magnitude of bad health advice it consistently offers, all while giving everything a veneer of credibility." [3] What follows is a selection of claims lacking scientific evidence.
Goldacre writes in the introduction of Bad Pharma that he aims to defend the following: . Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques which are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments.