This study examines how, in the realm of social media, Epinions Advisors voluntarily perform a role similar to that of a technical editor. Specifically, the study examines Advisors' use of politeness strategies at various levels of edit in order to motivate product reviewers to improve their work. The study categorizes Advisors' comments about 60 product reviews according to levels of edit in order to determine how Advisors address editing as they attempt to fulfill the concerns of technical editors: advocating for readers and mentoring writers. Updated reviews and Advisor–reviewer discussions suggest that Advisors motivated reviewers to edit.
CheungM. Y.LuoY. C.SiaC. L.ChenH. (2009). Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: Informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13, 9–38.
7.
ChevalierJ.MayzlinD. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 345–354.
8.
CorbinM.MoellP.BoydM. (2002). Technical editing as quality assurance: Adding value to content. Technical Communication, 49, 286–300.
9.
EatonA.BrewerP. E.PortewigT. C.DavidsonC. R. (2008). Examining editing in the workplace from the author’s point of view. Technical Communication, 55, 111–139.
10.
EdwardsA. R. (2002). The moderator as an emerging democratic intermediary: The role of the moderator in Internet discussions about public issues. Information Policy, 7, 3–20.
11.
GroveL. (1994). When the basics aren’t enough: Finding a comprehensive editor. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 37, 171–174.
12.
HarrisonT.StephenT. (1995). The electronic journal as the heart of an online disciplinary community. Library Trends, 43, 592–608.
13.
Hennig-ThurauT.GwinnerK. P.WalshG.GremlerD. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet?Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 38–52.
14.
HenryA.HoD. G. E. (2009). The act of complaining in Brunei: Then and now. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 840–855.
15.
HovlandC.JanisI.KelleyH. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16.
HuN.LiuL.ZhangJ. (2008). Do online reviews affect product sales? The role of reviewer characteristics and temporal effects. Information Technology Management, 9, 201–214.
17.
HylandF.HylandK. (2001). “Sugaring the pill:” Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.
18.
KollockP. (1999). The economies of online collaboration: Gifts and public goods in cyberspace. In SmithM. A.KollockP. (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 220–239). New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
LampelJ.BhallaA. (2007). The role of status seeking in online communities: Giving the gift of experience. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 434–455.
20.
LiuH.LimE.-P.LauwH. W.LeM.-T.SunA.SrivastavaJ.KimY. A. (2008). Predicting trusts among users of online communities: An Epinions case study. . In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. New York, NY: ACM.
21.
LockerK. O. (1999). Factors in reader responses to negative letters: Experimental evidence for changing what we teach. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13, 5–48.
22.
MackiewiczJ. (2005). Hinting at what they mean: Indirect suggestions in writing tutors' interactions with engineering students. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48, 365–376.
23.
MackiewiczJ. (2006). The functions of formulaic and non-formulaic compliments in interactions about technical writing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49, 12–27.
24.
MackiewiczJ. (2010a). Assertions of expertise in online product reviews. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24, 3–28.
25.
MackiewiczJ. (2010b). The Co-construction of credibility in online product reviews. Technical Communication Quarterly, 19, 403–426.
26.
MackiewiczJ.RileyK. (2003). The technical editor as diplomat: Linguistic strategies for balancing clarity and politeness. Technical Communication, 50, 83–94.
27.
MannoG. (1995). Politeness and urgency: The ups and downs of managing nonpreferential sequences in television game shows. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 24, 509–528.
28.
NewtonD. P.NewtonL. D. (1998). Enculturation and understanding: Some differences between sixth formers' and graduates' conceptions of understanding in history and science. Teaching in Higher Education, 3, 339–363.
29.
OhanianR. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19, 39–52.
30.
PitsilusG.ChiaP. H. (2010). Does trust matter for user preferences? A study on Epinions ratings. In NishigakiM.MurayamaM. Y.MarshS. (Eds.), Trust management IV (pp. 232–247). New York, NY: Springer.
TarutzJ. A. (1992). Technical editing: A practical guide for editors and writers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
37.
UryW. (1991). Getting past no. New York, NY: Bantam.
38.
Van BurenR.BuehlerM. F. (1980). The levels of edit (2nd ed.).
Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication.
39.
WaskoM. M.FarajS. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29, 35–57.
40.
YooK. H.GretzelU. (2008). What motivates consumers to write online travel reviews?Information, Technology, and Tourism, 10, 283–295.
