Beteiligte: | |
---|---|
In: | Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 28, 2014, 4, S. 419-446 |
veröffentlicht: |
SAGE Publications
|
Medientyp: | Artikel, E-Artikel |
Umfang: | 419-446 |
---|---|
ISSN: |
1050-6519
1552-4574 |
DOI: | 10.1177/1050651914535930 |
veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Business and Technical Communication |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Schlagwörter: | |
Kollektion: | SAGE Publications (CrossRef) |
<jats:p> 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. </jats:p> |