Reviews-Objective or Subjective

[Billymac]

Reviews can be either a good thing OR a bad thing. It all depends on the reviewer. Case in point:

In August 2002, 8 of us sailed the Norwegian Wind out of Vancouver to Glacier Bay. A review was posted somewhere along the lines of "the worst cruise I have ever been on." I remember that the review stated they were in an outside port cabin on Deck 5. All 8 of us were in outside port cabins on deck 5. The review stated that the smell of sewage all through the ship was terrible. We did not smell anything. The entertainment was lousy. We all know that the entertainment on NCL is top notch. And finally, the weather was so bad we couldn't go out on the deck. Toward the end of the cruise, the captain and many others came on stage during the final show as they usually do. The captain made the comment: "You people have had a most unusual cruise. This is the first cruise of the season that there was no rain!" The weather was beautiful all week long, sunny skies with puffy white clouds but mostly cloudless.

 

My point is, reviews are good as long as people are honest and objective. Not all people will do what the reviewer did on that cruise. Read all reviews of the ship. When it comes to food, everyone has a different preference. I have always found NCL to be OK for our needs.

 

So everyone, keep an open mind.

[njhorseman]

All reviews are the expression of the reviewer's opinion, and therefore subjective by definition. The only objective content of a review are statements of indisputable fact, such as "NCL charges $12 per day to your onboard account for service."

[AustinOO]

We all know that the entertainment on NCL is top notch.

 

Not that I disagree. We're looking forward to the Epic in a couple weeks for our first NCL experience. But this is a subjective statement. And the whole post could easily be reversed.

 

"We had great weather," versus "The Captain came out and apologized for the poor weather but what can you do?" "The cabin was perfect!" versus "There were drain issues when we sailed and we had a bad smell."

 

Negative does not = bias any more than positive = cheerleader. (Although I would much rather be a cheerleader)

[Got Tequila?]

When I look at a review I look for balance... If a cruise is 100% negative or even 100% positive I believe somthing must have influenced the writer to be totally biased one way or another. I've never had a vacation of any type where something didn't go as planned....did I let it effect the rest of my vacation, absolutely not.

 

I love to hear about the good, the bad and the ugly the way it happened.......and then what the poster did in response and how the situation was handled.

[tiff123]

I agree with Tequila. If someone is 100% positive, I wonder if they live in Disney World in their head a little bit. If someone is too much on the negative then I am suspicous of everything they have stated. I prefer a balance. Then I can decide how to work around the negative things they have brought up. For instance, if they have stated the pool gets too crowded then I might plan to look for some additional activities on sea days or get up extra early to get space by the pool, etc. in advance.

 

Recently a review came through that paraded itself as all positive, nothing to complain about... I understood that the poster didn't want to bring anyone down, and I am glad he had a great time on his cruise, but a review like that is not exactly helpful for me when I am going that ship. Being the OCD planner that I am, I really look for someone who is not afraid to tell it like it is but who isn't a total downer either!

[Hikini]

We have felt, in 5 past NCL cruises that the entertainment was top notch. We've had the privilege of cruising 3 different times with Shawn Farquhar a 2-time world champion magician and his shows are over the top fantastic! We've also cruised with some very funny ventriloquists, stand up comedians, etc.

 

This time, however, on our 6th NCL cruise we felt the entertainment was a little lacking. There was a great juggler on board but no stand up comedian. That was a big disappointment to our funny family.

[johnql]

All reviews are the expression of the reviewer's opinion, and therefore subjective by definition. The only objective content of a review are statements of indisputable fact, such as "NCL charges $12 per day to your onboard account for service."

Exactly. Unless the statement is based on quantitative, irrefutable grounds, it's subjective.

[Mr. Luckytoo]

The OP brings forth a good point but you have to remember that except for facts, i.e, number of dining venues, time of events, etc., most of a review IS subjective.

 

A perfect example is a ship's room size. When you look at the plans it gives the square footage that's a fact. However based on the layout it can "feel" larger or smaller based on how the furniture is arranged.

 

Furthermore when someone states that "...this was the worse cruise I've ever been on..." for that person it could have been; especially if all their prior cruises were on Crystal or Silver Seas and they were trying RCI for the first time...

 

But it's true that any review is subjective - especially when it comes to the food section...

[DAGVBSB]

When I look at a review, I immediately look for a few things...

 

 

1.) Is the poster blowing it out of proportion? "The cruise was a disaster" (did the ship sink? were you addrift for several days? did pirates board your ship?) Unless you answered yes to one of those questions, it was not a disaster. I wish people wouldn't call bad cruises disasters.

 

2.) Are they ranting about little things as to why their cruise was ruined: "my cruise was ruined because it was Dial Soap and not Pamalove" "my cruise was ruined because my luggage didn't get to my room until an hour after my neighbors" "my cruise was ruined because they did not have fresh squeezed orange juice." Stupid rants like those means the person has deeper issues than a bad cruise.

 

3.) Is it a first time poster? I know, not all first time posters are bad but many are one hit wonders or "trolls" who make a negative report and then disapear. Does the poster return to answer questions or claify things that are being questioned? A one hit wonder is an automatic disqualification of the review for me.

 

4.) Is the person bashing NCL for something that other lines do differently? (the corkage charge or the DSC or Freestyle dining). Again, a person who needs to get a life and not write reviews. And there is a difference between pointing out differences and bashing. ("I prefer RCCL's tipping policy over NCL's DSC because it is more fair" for example as opposed to: "NCL's DSC is a rip-off" or "RCCL's does tipping better." Even though I don't agree with what is said in the first example, I can accept it because they gave a reason.)

 

5.) Are there examples to back up their claims. WHY did you not like the food? WHY did you not like the entertainment? What specifically was wrong with your cabin?

 

6.) I don't care what you think of the dress code itself but I would be ok if you told about how the code was enforced or not enforced or what you wore.

 

7.) Have other reviews or reports told of this same negative or problem? (the smell on the POA sometimes for example or the renovations of the Star.) If that is the case, then the report is more believeable as well.

 

and the other thing to remember is that those who have something negative to say are 10 times more likely to write a review or post a comment than those who only had a positive experience. So you should only count 1 out of every 10 negative reviews against each positive review for the correct ratio of positive to negative.

 

Finally, Cruise Critic members only make up about 2% of the total number of people who cruise on any given ship... a very small percentage of the overall passenger load so negative reviews should be looked at on that scale.

[tiff123]

I would never base my decision on whether to cruise on a ship based on one review. However if 75% of reviews were largely negative that would influence me. If one review was largely negative that would in no way make me not book a cruise.

[STARFISH*4]

to me reading so many of the negative reviews it seems like the poster is just finding fault with everything and being so "picky"..i wouldnt base my decision to cruise on a ship or whatever based on alot of these reviews...specially when they start out "The Worst Cruise Ever" or The Food was Awful"!!

[Sauer-kraut]

But then into the equation you need to adjust for the people who were satisfied with their cruise and didn't feel the need to post a review. Whereas a person who has had an unsatisfactory cruise will come bad and post because they want to make sure people will be informed of the things that they considered bad.

 

I think I have fuzzy logic there but oh well, just my opinion.

[luddite]

But then into the equation you need to adjust for the people who were satisfied with their cruise and didn't feel the need to post a review. Whereas a person who has had an unsatisfactory cruise will come bad and post because they want to make sure people will be informed of the things that they considered bad.

 

I think I have fuzzy logic there but oh well, just my opinion.

 

Not so fuzzy on that logic. Another factor is when the poster has an axe to grind.....

[newmexicoNita]

Reviews can be either a good thing OR a bad thing. It all depends on the reviewer. Case in point:

In August 2002, 8 of us sailed the Norwegian Wind out of Vancouver to Glacier Bay. A review was posted somewhere along the lines of "the worst cruise I have ever been on." I remember that the review stated they were in an outside port cabin on Deck 5. All 8 of us were in outside port cabins on deck 5. The review stated that the smell of sewage all through the ship was terrible. We did not smell anything. The entertainment was lousy. We all know that the entertainment on NCL is top notch. And finally, the weather was so bad we couldn't go out on the deck. Toward the end of the cruise, the captain and many others came on stage during the final show as they usually do. The captain made the comment: "You people have had a most unusual cruise. This is the first cruise of the season that there was no rain!" The weather was beautiful all week long, sunny skies with puffy white clouds but mostly cloudless.

 

My point is, reviews are good as long as people are honest and objective. Not all people will do what the reviewer did on that cruise. Read all reviews of the ship. When it comes to food, everyone has a different preference. I have always found NCL to be OK for our needs.

 

So everyone, keep an open mind.

 

Great posting. That is why I sometimes get so defensive, I am not basically a negative person and I don't think most people are, so when I see things like "it was the worst experience ever" or see someone who has never or rarely posted and starts in about how horrible things were I realize most of them are grumble bunnies and probably expecting champange on a beer budget.

 

Reviews can be very helpful if not taken too seriously and if the reviewer also keeps an open mind.

 

Nita

[CruisinMaterial]

But then into the equation you need to adjust for the people who were satisfied with their cruise and didn't feel the need to post a review. Whereas a person who has had an unsatisfactory cruise will come bad and post because they want to make sure people will be informed of the things that they considered bad.

 

I think I have fuzzy logic there but oh well, just my opinion.

 

I agree. More people are inclined to post when things go wrong or not to their liking then when they go right. I didn't post a review of my Carnival cruise but that cruise was the WORST cruise I'd ever been on in my entire cruising life. Why? Mom always says... if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all. (I will give Carnival props for having good food tho.)

 

Anyway... I am always posting the good and the bad about NCL but on the Jewel which I've sailed on recently twice... there was nothing that bad and when there was one and I mean just one little issue when I mentioned it to John it got dealt with so quickly I was stunned. (The issue being served house - nasty - vodka versus the Goose in Spinnakers the previous night and being charged for Goose.) I met the Bar Manager and she became a great friend by the end of the cruise! I don't think I even mentioned this in my CC review but if I did it was to show how quickly John resolved the matter.

 

Reviews are very subjective on here. I take them with a grain of salt - especially when it comes to the Jewel and Spirit. Hopefully more positive reviews and naming names of people onboard who are doing their jobs outstandingly will come in the future but I will not hold my breath.

[billie5]

Don't agree, Nita. (There! I don't get to say that very often.)

 

I think it was a rather poor posting by OP. As many have said, if the review were based only on facts, with no subjective opinion, it would be a rather worthless review. The displacement of the ship, size of the room, number of food venues, etc., all very objective. Dealing with how the food, service, entertainment was, that is bound to be subjective. Keeping an open mind, sure, but this objective/subjective business is pretty much nonsense.

 

Bill

[sottovoce]

Don't agree, Nita. (There! I don't get to say that very often.)

 

I think it was a rather poor posting by OP. As many have said, if the review were based only on facts, with no subjective opinion, it would be a rather worthless review. The displacement of the ship, size of the room, number of food venues, etc., all very objective. Dealing with how the food, service, entertainment was, that is bound to be subjective. Keeping an open mind, sure, but this objective/subjective business is pretty much nonsense.

 

Bill

I think the key is including specifics, not sarcastic and demeaning generalities. Writing "the food was terrible" is simply nonsense. Tell me specifics, like "my steak was overdone" or "the beef stroganoff is not the recipe my mother used." Don't tell me the entertainment was "awful." Tell me what wasn't good and what you would like to have seen instead--specifically. For example, one person hated the entertainment but then, when pushed for specifics, admitted the only music she liked was big band or Broadway shows. Well, duh!

 

Similarly, don't write "I couldn't find anything to eat" without listing your self-imposed dietary limitations. Again, when pressed, someone who wrote this admitted she didn't eat fish, pork, or lamb. Sorry, but that's not the ship's fault; blame your parents for not exposing you to a wider variety of food.

 

Don't write "the ship was hard to navigate." Tell me where you were trying to go and why it was difficult to get there. Likewise, don't write "the elevators don't stop at every floor." Tell me where you wanted to get off and which elevator didn't stop there. NCL's Jewel-class ships have passengers enter main dining rooms by walking down a flight of stairs, unless disabled. If that's the specific problem, just say that. Don't condemn the entire ship as "hard to navigate" because of the way the entrances to the dining rooms were designed.

 

Don't write "the buffet had the same breakfast items every day" without telling me what they didn't have that you wanted. There must be over 100 breakfast items to choose from, including nearly everything Americans ever eat for breakfast. You could have a substantial breakfast in the buffet every day for two weeks and never eat the same thing twice.

[tiff123]

I think the key is including specifics, not sarcastic and demeaning generalities. Writing "the food was terrible" is simply nonsense. Tell me specifics, like "my steak was overdone" or "the beef stroganoff is not the recipe my mother used." Don't tell me the entertainment was "awful." Tell me what wasn't good and what you would like to have seen instead--specifically. For example, one person hated the entertainment but then, when pushed for specifics, admitted the only music she liked was big band or Broadway shows. Well, duh!

 

Similarly, don't write "I couldn't find anything to eat" without listing your self-imposed dietary limitations. Again, when pressed, someone who wrote this admitted she didn't eat fish, pork, or lamb. Sorry, but that's not the ship's fault; blame your parents for not exposing you to a wider variety of food.

 

Don't write "the ship was hard to navigate." Tell me where you were trying to go and why it was difficult to get there. Likewise, don't write "the elevators don't stop at every floor." Tell me where you wanted to get off and which elevator didn't stop there. NCL's Jewel-class ships have passengers enter main dining rooms by walking down a flight of stairs, unless disabled. If that's the specific problem, just say that. Don't condemn the entire ship as "hard to navigate" because of the way the entrances to the dining rooms were designed.

 

Don't write "the buffet had the same breakfast items every day" without telling me what they didn't have that you wanted. There must be over 100 breakfast items to choose from, including nearly everything Americans ever eat for breakfast. You could have a substantial breakfast in the buffet every day for two weeks and never eat the same thing twice.

 

 

GREAT points! Recently someone wrote that they didn't care for the Second City Comedy Troupe (I think that is their name) on the Dawn. At first I was a little disappointed to hear this, but they went on to qualify this... to say that it was similar to Saturday night live humor which they don't care for. That completely changes the review of the Second City Comedy Troupe to a positive spine for me as I enjoy Sat night live! Without giving examples and then giving a personal background about their opinion the review is worthless.