Comments on: I’m Into Something Good: A Saturday Stroll about Recommendations

By: Molika

Molika — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:50:22 +0000

is very good!

By: Salv Reina

Salv Reina — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:41:34 +0000

I always thought the image of the sandwich was best when it comes to feedback. A good bit, a bad bit (marmite maybe – I know some people love it) and a good bit. Simple, reasonably balanced, and does the job.

I do agree that there is too much tendency to focus on the bad when it comes to opinion and feedback – maybe this is how people think they will be heard. The problem of course is that this behaviour skews things. It’s a form of sensationalism and one of our less endearing traits as humans.

It reminds me of how we (humans) assess risk. A small but terrible risk becomes magnified through this sensationalism loop (media, commentators, ill-informed) and distorts the truth.

By: Mark Pennington

Mark Pennington — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:46:01 +0000

I whole heartedly agree with this blog, as a broad society we have been trained that constantly being negative towards individuals, organisations, the news and in everyday life is deemed to be acceptable and worse, has become the norm.

Take a glance at the news over the past 6 months; would we be in this “credit crunch” recession/depression if it wasn’t for the doom mongering of the media, who are even responsible for the term “credit crunch” after all. For just one example, would there have been a run on Northern Rock if the media hadn’t broadcast they were in difficulties?

Now, I’m not saying we should withhold information or mislead, but if there could be a different, more positive, slant put on news as apposed to the headline grabbing negative ones, wouldn’t that benefit businesses and the economy in the long run?

As previously said, feedback allows for growth of ideas, and it is the individual’s prerogative whether they acknowledge, value or use that feedback. Criticism and positive feedback are both good, but you can’t have a positive feedback without a negative to compare it to.

By: DE

DE — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:47:06 +0000

Yes, collectively you can still calibrate without a bottom – just hope everyone is truly on a similar scale.

And remember the Alexi Sayle joke?

“People say you can judge a restaurant by looking at how many natives are eating in it. But thats crap – loads of English people eat in Little Chef “

By: Charles Edward Frith

Charles Edward Frith — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:06:39 +0000

This is a terrific thought that works like “Pay it forward”. I like it a lot.

By: JP

JP — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:27:46 +0000

@DE try this. friends know that I like japanese cooking, so they recommend restaurants to me. when they do so, quite often I have no idea what their “zero” is. So I go to the restaurant and inspect. I look in, and if there’s a whole lot of Japanese people there, I sit down.

Collective intelligence and crowdsourcing are good ways to find out what your friends’ recommendation calibrations are like.

By: DE

DE — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:31:36 +0000

No, no, no, no.

I’ve no interest in what someone thinks is good until I know what they think is bad. Otherwise its like a scale with no zero.

Good things share many common traits, but bad things are often unique in their tragedy. Sometimes bad is true genius – that will later understood to be good.

It has become common place for the immature to have a negative attitude. That should be tuned out. But the shiny veneer of good should should not blind you to the boundless weirdness of bad.

By: Conor Ogle

Conor Ogle — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:49:33 +0000

Ah, JP I do see your point(s).
Of course I would prefer to trust the recommendations of people I know and share values with wherever possible.
I guess I’m just thinking that my network is relatively small and if I need recommendations on family-friendly ski resorts for example, I can’t expect that I know and trust enough people who can give me a subjective opinion that I will value.
In those instances, whilst I’d be willing to trust the recommendation from 2nd/3rd derivatives of my own network, I’d rather find a way of matching my “likes/dislikes” with relative strangers and use a pool of their recent experience.
For criticism, yes of course, ensuring the spirit is “right” is optimal, but a little distance can sometimes help in the right circumstances.
In my coaching experience – I have found some – particularly Gestalt practitioners – who don’t “know” me yet can help me achieve my very best.
I suppose I can trust them not because of their qualifications/training but rather because I can assess their advice dynamically and choose to stop listening.
Rather more difficult with plumbers.

By: JP

JP — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:36:20 +0000

Conor, a few observations. Firstly, I don’t *want* to trust the recommendations of strangers but of friends.

The same goes for criticism. I would prefer the “criticism” of people I have a relationship with, because it is given in the right spirit.

By: Conor Ogle

Conor Ogle — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:28:44 +0000

JP, to fully trust the restaurant recommendations of strangers, I would prefer/need to see that they have a balanced approach to reviewing (some dazzling, some ordinary, some perhaps downright disappointing).
For a singular event-based recommendation like for an emergency plumber, a single glowing (though genuine) recommendation may be enough, but could there be ways to rank those endorsing the service and thus the services themselves?

Separately, I often post photos to Flickr which get 1,000+ views and 100+ comments/favourites but despite 100,000 visitors to my images, I still crave informed (“constructive”) criticism to improve my photography.
The absence of negative (yet positive?) criticism risks letting all Flickr users believe they are Ansel Adams and will therefore never learn to stretch themselves and improve.