What some people may not know is that these 'dumb' reviews are there for a very pernicious reason: to appear to present impartial opinions when in reality, everything published is censored.
As a matter of fact, if a website with user reviews doesn't like what the user is saying, they simply won't publish it, while presenting a faÃ§ade of impartiality by publishing weak critics that can be easily dismissed along with the newbie gushers while the serious, in depth user reviews never show up..
It's very devious, as under a veneer of openness they manipulate public opinion by deforming reality and presenting it as fact.
Just take a good look at the 'user reviews' at the canadiantire.ca site, for example. Take a good look at their lengthy 'user agreement' and take a sample read of user reviews for any given product and tell me this isn't so...
Background: there are capable, intelligent & eager workers in CustomerCompany who would gladly participate in the project. Mgmt, however, says "It's not your job to help those yoyos with specs/design/tests. Your job is to (fill in the blank.) Mgmt ends up sending least qualified person to design mtg. (All qualified people busy working on whatever performance goals they're to achieve by a certain date.) Once the thing is up and running, everybody at CustomerCompany discovers product to be insufficient, unwieldy, incomprehensible. CustomerCompany Mgmt response: "Well, that's what we have to work with, get used to it."