This study examines the type of edit that amateur editors called Advisors used in their comments on Epinions.com product reviews and the extent to which their editing-related comments might have motivated reviewers to revise and update their reviews. Advisors made substantive-type suggestions most frequently, but for the most part, reviews that received editing-related comments were not updated more often than were those with nonediting-related comments. Unlike professional editors, Advisors lack gatekeeping control that compels writers to revise their work, but as companies recognize the value of quality user-generated content, they may use amateur editors more often, perhaps in conjunction with professional technical editors.
AmesA. L.JensenS. M. (2004). Transforming your career: Contributing strategically to your company or client. In 51st Annual STC conference proceedings (pp. 119–122). Baltimore, MD: Society for Technical Communication.
2.
BarkaouiK. (2007). Revision in second language writing: What teachers need to know. TESL Canada Journal, 25, 81–92.
3.
BenoitW. L.HolbertR. L. (2008). Empirical intersections in communication research: Replication, multiple quantitative methods, and bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide. Journal of Communication, 58, 615–628.
4.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
5.
CarlinerS. (2012). The three approaches to professionalization in technical communication. Technical Communication, 59, 49–65.
6.
ChevalierJ. A.MayzlinD. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 345–354.
7.
ClearyY. (2012). Discussions about the technical communication profession: Perspectives from the blogosphere. Technical Communication, 59, 8–28.
CollinsH. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10.
DicksR. S. (2010). The effects of digital literacy on the nature of technical communication work. In SpilkaR. (Ed.), Digital literacy for technical communication: 21st Century theory and practice (pp. 50–81). New York, NY: Routledge.
GaddisJ. L. (2002). The landscape of history: How historians map the past. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
13.
GeislerC.BazermanC.Doheny-FarinaS.GurakL.HaasC.Johnson-EilolaJ.…YatesJ. (2001). IText: Future directions for research on the relationship between information technology and writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15, 269–308.
14.
GhoseA.IpeirotisP. G. (2011). Estimating the helpfulness and economic impact of product reviews: Mining test and reviewer characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 23, 1498–1512.
HaswellR. H. (2005). NCTE/CCCC’s recent war on scholarship. Written Communication, 22, 198–223.
17.
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.
18.
HylandF.HylandK. (2001). “Sugaring the pill”: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.
19.
Johnson-EilolaJ. (2004). Datacloud: Toward a new theory of online work. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
KeenA. (2007). The cult of the amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture. New York, NY: Doubleday.
22.
KosmaR. B. (1991). Computer-based writing tools and the cognitive needs of novice writers. Computers and Composition, 8, 31–45.
23.
LazonderH. W.van der MeijH. (1993). The minimal manual. Is less really more?International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 39, 729–752.
24.
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 (pp. 310–319). New York, NY: ACM.
25.
MackiewiczJ. (2006). The functions of formulaic and non-formulaic compliments in interactions about technical writing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49, 12–27.
26.
MackiewiczJ. (2010). Assertions of expertise in online reviews. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24, 3–28.
27.
MackiewiczJ. (2011). Epinions Advisors as technical editors: Using politeness to motivate comprehensive editing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 25, 421–448.
28.
MackiewiczJ.RileyK. (2003). The technical editor as diplomat: Linguistic strategies for balancing clarity and politeness. Technical Communication, 50, 83–94.
29.
ManesJ.WolfsonN. (1981). The compliment formula. In CoulmasF. (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication and prepatterned speech (pp. 115–132). The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
30.
MudambiS. M.SchuffD. (2010). What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quarterly, 34, 185–200.
31.
NakayamaM.SutcliffeN.WanY. (2010). Has the Web transformed experience goods into search goods?Electronic Markets, 20, 251–262.
32.
NelsonP. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78, 311–329.
OtterbacherJ. (2011). Being heard in review communities: Communication tactics and review prominence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 424–444.
35.
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.
36.
PorteG.RichardsK. (2012). Focus article: Replication in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 284–293.
37.
RaggioR. D.FolseJ. A. G. (2009). Gratitude works: Its impact and the mediating role of affective commitment in driving positive outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 455–469.
RauchM.MorrisonC.GoetzA. (2010). Are we there yet? An examination of where we’ve been and where we’re headed as technical communicators. Proceedings of the International Professional Communication Conference (pp. 297–309). Mahwah, NJ: IEEE.
40.
ReichR. (1991). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st-century capitalism. New York, NY: Knopf.
41.
RelloL.Baeza-YatesR. (2012). Social media is NOT that bad! The lexical quality of social media. In Proceedings of the Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 559–562). Retrieved fromhttp://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM12/paper/…/4711/5057
42.
RiceJ. (2009). Networked exchanges, identity, writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23, 294–317.
SasakiM. (2012). An alternative approach to replication studies in second language writing: An ecological perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 303–305.
45.
SenS.LermanD. (2007). Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the Web. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21, 76–94.
46.
SenecalS.NantelJ. (2004). The influence of online product recommendations on consumers’ online choices. Journal of Retailing, 80, 159–169.
WalkerC. P.EliasD. (1987). Writing conference talk: Factors associated with high- and low-rated writing conferences. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 266–285.
57.
WaskoM. M.FarajS. (2005). “Why should I share?” Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29, 35–57.
58.
YooK. H.GretzelU. (2008). What motivates consumers to write online travel reviews?Information, Technology, and Tourism, 10, 283–295.
59.
ZhangX.DellarocasC. (2006). The lord of the ratings: How a movie’s fate is influenced by reviews. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1959–1978). Milwaukee, WI: Association for Information Systems.
