that is what i was asking though, do people believe the most expensive is the best automaticalluy?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#463,598
i always sort from high to low to see what i can't afford and by the time i see what i can afford i don't want it anymore
dw !jdTkvovFCQ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#463,599
@previous (C)
this seems like a reason not to include the feature!
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#463,601
@previous (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
from a sales point of view yes
though i would think there actually are people with enough money that sort from high to low because they think expensive is better
or just to show their shallow friends they have enough money to waste it on brand names and image to gain status
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#463,626
I tend to use the high–low sorting. I start high and skip the ones out of my price range, then I move through the items that are just overpriced and I start to find things that have features I want. Finally, I land on my desired price range and I pick a product that’s a good mix of craftsmanship, durability, value, and features. I don’t buy the cheapest widget.
Metæ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 55 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#463,629
@OP
Sometimes it helps to filter out accessories. If you search for "iPhone" it might turn up 9001 iPhone cases and screen protectors in addition to iPhones. If you then sort by highest price first, the iPhone will be on top since its more expensive than all the cases, etc.
dw !jdTkvovFCQ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 19 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#463,630
@previous (Metæ)
then you should have more concise categories.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 47 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#463,631
@previous (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
In a perfect world, yes. But eBay and Amazon and Google didn't get the memo.
Meowth joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 15 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#463,706
Yes, this is how my old boss and I would order things. We just bought the most expensive. Sorting by highest rated to lowest is not always best, and this is because many items (both cheap and expensive) with one review will pop up first.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#463,915
@463,596 (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
Do people believe that the most expensive is automatically the best? No, but, you generally do get what you pay for. The problem with sorting by ratings is that it often shows you the best value, in sense that there are a lot of 5-star products that are 5-star not because they are the very best but because they are very good for the money. Sometimes you're willing to spend extra to get the very best and not just something that's good for the money. This is when sorting by high to low (but still looking at ratings) is very useful.
I'm already thinking about replacing it with this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16826104857
$20 more and 4 "star" with only 29 reviews. Why would I spend more on a lower "rated" product? Because I know Logitech makes exceptional hardware. I know I'm getting what I pay for. I know that most of the people who give it anything less than 4 stars or eggs are whiny bitches who expect miracles because they paid a little bit more or flat out don't know what the fuck they're talking about. You can't always trust reviews.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#463,921
@previous (G)
You bring up a good point. It would seem absurd to pay more to get less stars but the best $40 mouse may not be as good as a good $60 mouse.
Also comparing stars across websites can't be easy: newegg is targeting a more tech literate audience than Amazon, so 4 newegg stars on a tech product might be worth 5 Amazon stars.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 9 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#463,990
@previous (Metæ) > implying sellers don't tweak star ratings based on margins. > implying producers don't have wage slaves in India and China to post fake reviews.
God damn you guys are gullible for a bunch of atheists.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 23 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#463,993
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#464,031
@463,990 (H)
Easy there Alex Jones. Keep your tinfoil hat on.
Meowth replied with this 12 years ago, 6 days later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#465,007
@463,915 (G)
You'd be surprised how many people that have money are naive to such common sense. I really am serious that my old boss would just get the most expensive assuming it was the best.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^][v]#465,079
@464,031 (Metæ)
Yeah, clearly these are unfounded concerns. Amazon overhauled their entire system to indicate verified purchases a few years ago for nothing.
I'm sure nobody ever tries to game a system for profit, nothing ever goes on behind the scenes, and you personally know far more about such things than the management of Amazon possibly could.
LOL. And they say education in America isn't being dumbed down.