Re: The Death of Customer Service...
Easily a Top 5 post in OS's history.
I had high expectations based on recommendations from this thread. Perhaps my bias is due in part to my hopes being lifted up by such lofty exclamations I've read in here. Due to these reasons I was left unfulfilled and, to be frank, really peeved by the lack of structure, high-quality professional photographs, and an overbearing sense of pompous nuttery.
When I clicked on the link on page 8 (at 20 posts-per-page), post #118 I was surprised to see it load so quickly. I've never been on yelp.com before so it was brand-new to my CPU and my cache. Almost immediately my eyes are met with a bright-red header behind white font asking for me to sign-up or log-in. Frankly, I don't like to be rushed into decisions when visiting new pages so my anxiety is already starting up. The overall structure and form of the page is very sleek and refined. There are badges and tiny symbols scattered around the page, but no helpful legend to be found. Apparently the web designer missed that day of class. The page notes that these reviews "...go into detail others don't AND I usually provide pictures!" so I chose to believe him and press on despite these (literal) red flags already appearing.
I typically do not comment on people's outward appearances, but the pictures chosen to represent the image of the Reviewer left me feeling uneasy. Why won't he look into the camera? What is he hiding? Why am I looking at the top of his forehead, the bottom of his left cheek, and not into his beady eyes? He's a self-proclaimed "Pizza nut" and I'm starting to believe him. Admittedly, the one positive to this is it leaves the Reader feeling invigorated with confidence which I am always happy with and appreciate the nice gesture from the Reviewer. In his personal statistics the Reviewer has 129 friends (I would have preferred an integer divisible by 5 or 2, but people are fickle and I cannot deduct too much for such negligence). His 949 photos to 309 reviews (at time of writing this article) puts his photo-to-review ratio at a little over 3 pictures per review which I find very promising for the prospects of his reviews.
When you scroll down the page the ugly red header and profile information vanishes after the second review (more specifically the Bob Evan's Easter Dinner Review of 2017) which is a welcome feature as it removes needless clutter from the page. As such this allows the reader to focus solely on the reviews. And the reviews are fairly rewarding depending upon your reason for reading.
Each review is presented in first-person narrative form. Many of them are modeled after the stream of consciousness narrative mode made famous by such masters of the craft as Faulkner, Woolf, and Alex of the infamous Analysis Assessment Anonymity Association. The Reviewer does his best to put the Reader into his shoes and mindset for each encounter. Still, I'm left with unanswered questions from each one that could have been avoided with more detail. Why get salad if you don't want salad? What other elaborate buffets have you eaten at (Little Tony's - 3/29/17)? What other platforms are you providing criticism upon and why aren't they linked or documented (Little Tony's - 4/11/17)? His compliments are often back-handed. While they remark positively with a typical good or the occasional GREAT or FANTASTIC they often give the impression that the Reviewer is uncomfortable giving glowing endorsements without some compromising stipulation. His 4/5/17 entry for Long John Silver's begins with the paradox "Food is fantastic (for fast food fish)" to which he never expounds upon this advancement in technology and instead laments on the negative impact of his previous visits. Even at 2 stars he doesn't refute the fact that he will be back. Because the fast food fish is fantastic...for fast food fish! Does that mean its in actuality terrible? Another open-ended question of a review.
While his words provide little insight into the quality of food or service (but plenty of psychoanalytical fodder) surely his pictures would help matters? After all he has an average of 3.07 pictures per review. Despite such a high average some reviews contain no pictures whatsoever. Well. OKAY then! The pictures that are actually there are quite unprofessional. The framing and lighting are typically not flattering of the subject matter. Most of the food was either out of focus or greasy (I'm still unsure as of publication) and offer no additional insight to the Review's words. Some pictures are of half-eaten food while others are of literal holes in the ground! Disgusting. I had high hopes for these pictures, but this is a clear case of QUANTITY over QUALITY. Three pictures per review? I say three pictures too many!
At worst the reviews read as arbitrary lamentations from a man with thinning hair who's only pleasure comes from the succinct snap of a cooked pepperoni in his mouth between globs of melted cheese and garlic seasoned dough. At best they're largely forgettable diaries pertaining to fast, greasy food and home services that we all take for granted on a daily basis.
Overall I found the whole to be tasteless and immediately digestible which is good because I'd rather have this in my toilet than in my body whatsoever.
2.5/5 Cackles.
When I clicked on the link on page 8 (at 20 posts-per-page), post #118 I was surprised to see it load so quickly. I've never been on yelp.com before so it was brand-new to my CPU and my cache. Almost immediately my eyes are met with a bright-red header behind white font asking for me to sign-up or log-in. Frankly, I don't like to be rushed into decisions when visiting new pages so my anxiety is already starting up. The overall structure and form of the page is very sleek and refined. There are badges and tiny symbols scattered around the page, but no helpful legend to be found. Apparently the web designer missed that day of class. The page notes that these reviews "...go into detail others don't AND I usually provide pictures!" so I chose to believe him and press on despite these (literal) red flags already appearing.
I typically do not comment on people's outward appearances, but the pictures chosen to represent the image of the Reviewer left me feeling uneasy. Why won't he look into the camera? What is he hiding? Why am I looking at the top of his forehead, the bottom of his left cheek, and not into his beady eyes? He's a self-proclaimed "Pizza nut" and I'm starting to believe him. Admittedly, the one positive to this is it leaves the Reader feeling invigorated with confidence which I am always happy with and appreciate the nice gesture from the Reviewer. In his personal statistics the Reviewer has 129 friends (I would have preferred an integer divisible by 5 or 2, but people are fickle and I cannot deduct too much for such negligence). His 949 photos to 309 reviews (at time of writing this article) puts his photo-to-review ratio at a little over 3 pictures per review which I find very promising for the prospects of his reviews.
When you scroll down the page the ugly red header and profile information vanishes after the second review (more specifically the Bob Evan's Easter Dinner Review of 2017) which is a welcome feature as it removes needless clutter from the page. As such this allows the reader to focus solely on the reviews. And the reviews are fairly rewarding depending upon your reason for reading.
Each review is presented in first-person narrative form. Many of them are modeled after the stream of consciousness narrative mode made famous by such masters of the craft as Faulkner, Woolf, and Alex of the infamous Analysis Assessment Anonymity Association. The Reviewer does his best to put the Reader into his shoes and mindset for each encounter. Still, I'm left with unanswered questions from each one that could have been avoided with more detail. Why get salad if you don't want salad? What other elaborate buffets have you eaten at (Little Tony's - 3/29/17)? What other platforms are you providing criticism upon and why aren't they linked or documented (Little Tony's - 4/11/17)? His compliments are often back-handed. While they remark positively with a typical good or the occasional GREAT or FANTASTIC they often give the impression that the Reviewer is uncomfortable giving glowing endorsements without some compromising stipulation. His 4/5/17 entry for Long John Silver's begins with the paradox "Food is fantastic (for fast food fish)" to which he never expounds upon this advancement in technology and instead laments on the negative impact of his previous visits. Even at 2 stars he doesn't refute the fact that he will be back. Because the fast food fish is fantastic...for fast food fish! Does that mean its in actuality terrible? Another open-ended question of a review.
While his words provide little insight into the quality of food or service (but plenty of psychoanalytical fodder) surely his pictures would help matters? After all he has an average of 3.07 pictures per review. Despite such a high average some reviews contain no pictures whatsoever. Well. OKAY then! The pictures that are actually there are quite unprofessional. The framing and lighting are typically not flattering of the subject matter. Most of the food was either out of focus or greasy (I'm still unsure as of publication) and offer no additional insight to the Review's words. Some pictures are of half-eaten food while others are of literal holes in the ground! Disgusting. I had high hopes for these pictures, but this is a clear case of QUANTITY over QUALITY. Three pictures per review? I say three pictures too many!
At worst the reviews read as arbitrary lamentations from a man with thinning hair who's only pleasure comes from the succinct snap of a cooked pepperoni in his mouth between globs of melted cheese and garlic seasoned dough. At best they're largely forgettable diaries pertaining to fast, greasy food and home services that we all take for granted on a daily basis.
Overall I found the whole to be tasteless and immediately digestible which is good because I'd rather have this in my toilet than in my body whatsoever.
2.5/5 Cackles.
Comment