Why I distrust reviews on YouTube, and why you should too.

When reviewing a product like a piece of technology or a movie for example, one would expect the reviews and the reviewer to be objective in their reviews. However, given the popularity of YouTube and independent websites like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes (Ewww!) even, you cannot distinguish whose reviews are being genuine and which ones are fake. Unfortunately this is becoming difficult and nearly impossible to tell with the pantheon of reviewers saturating both the Internet and YouTube.

Over the past couple of decades however, these reviewers have gotten so bold that anyone who is anyone is able to review a movie or a piece of technology whether they are qualified or not, have been churning out reviews that are not entirely objective, nor provide clarity on who would be the right target customer based or the right target audience for a movie for example. They defend their poor quality criticisms by calling them constructive criticisms. They argue that they are expressing their opinions. Maybe some of them are and maybe some of them are justifying their poor criticisms with excuses. Zeus only knows the answer to this. And to add insult to injury, nobody seems to be analyzing their feedback or criticisms and challenging them on this by asking relevant questions.

And where are these 'critics' coming from or originating from? Mostly from the Internet and YouTube if you were to ask me. Some of the critics are down right paid trolls and it shows in what they say about a particular product or reviews.

The biggest problem with critics:

The nitpicking - especially in product reviews. How on great Zeus' Olympus can they sit there in their armchair, with that flashy looking headset of theirs (while trying to look cool/stylish), and in front of their computer with that fancy keyboard that they spent more money than necessary for focus on every god forsaken flaw of a product or a movie and claim that you are expressing an opinion or providing constructive feedback? Let me tell you, these so called 'reviewers' or 'critics' aren't doing themselves any favors by nitpicking. They simply need to stare the crap out of themselves in the mirror and ask: "why I am doing this in the first place?" 

The fact that these critics on the Internet need no documentation or anything to show that they are qualified to offer any sort of criticism (constructive or otherwise) should be a cause for great concern.

Examples of poor quality criticisms:

• When it comes to movies and TV shows, every single aspect of the story is over analyzed and shredded to bits and heavily criticized as not being realistic or not believable. This is true when it comes to action movies and fantasy based movies and TV shows. What these idiots fail to see is that movies and TV shows are make belief, they aren't meant to be realistic because the audience wants to 'suspend their disbelief' when they watch the movie or TV show in question. They also fail to understand that when movies are made and stories are written, they are based off of the "What if" scenario and then answering that question in the end of the movie. 
• Here's the scoop: any movie or TV show that is heavily criticized is the best one to watch and anything that is heavily praised is to be avoided at all costs. 
• If you'd like an example, the critics who heavily criticized the film The Tomorrow War deserve a super strong and harsh slap on the face. They criticized anything and everything wrong with it. Are you fluffing joshing me? When I finally got to see the movie, it was a fantastic experience. Very well planned and executed. With J.K Simmons and Chris Pratt as the duo hero team working together to defeat the enemy.
• Smartphone reviews. Okay, I will give a pass to two individuals on this one: MKBHD and Mrwhosetheboss on YouTube. Most reviewers of smartphones however, are a different story: They start off with the specs as always and they compare it to other popular smartphones on the market. Some even argue how Android is better than iOS and make the same old dumb ass recycled arguments about the operating systems that are often refutable. They forget who the target customer base is for each operating system of the smartphone. These are also the type of reviewers who only focus on the hardware features and specifications and base their criticism off of that. They never really touch on the user experience. I have seen a lot of debates (some of them heated) arguing why this smartphone is better than that smartphone and yadiyadi yadda. Not even a mention of who really goes for something like that. Not everyone needs the features boasted about a particular smartphone.
• Camera lenses. When reviewing these lenses, I am pretty sure reviewers not only zoom in on a particular section of a still image or a moving image, they also fault the lens for having these imperfections and expect the rest of us to fork out big money to buy the lenses that they recommend. Since the final image will be viewed in its entirety, why would they bother with the darn details? The average Joe will not be purposely looking at the image for these flaws so what the bloody Lucifer are they doing here? The average Joe will only be interested in the experience of it all. Plus, they're not even mentioning who would use the lenses they are reviewing. There are areas that these critics are focusing on that aren't really relevant in some professional settings:
• De-clicked aperture ring: This is where when you turn the aperture ring to a desired number setting, the ring clicks when moving to the next number until it reaches the desired setting. I can only thing of one scenario where this could cause a problem: If you are recording a moving image and changing the aperture at the same time. However, I am not sure why this is relevant because most of the time, you'd keep the aperture constant and change it before capturing the next image or another image.
• Chromatic adoration or purple fringing: This is one of the most commonly critiqued flaw when reviewing lenses. This is where there is discoloration in parts of the captured image. This happens when the reviewers zoom in on various parts of the image and spot it. Not exactly sure why this is such a big issue for them when they bring it up.
• Comparing lenses from two different manufacturers: Like most product comparison reviews, comparing two different lenses that are similar in focal length and specifications from two different manufacturers has become common, and one again, while comparing images taken by these two competing lenses, the critics focus on the same darn aspects of the lenses. The competing lenses may cost less and yes, the general consensus is to determine whether the drop in price is even worth the cost and investment into the lens, but no mention of who would be the target customer base for them.
• Other tech like cameras and computers. Again, the specs and the hardware features come into play rather than the user experience of it all. They don't even reveal in their review who the equipment being reviewed is for.
• When it comes to cameras, rolling shutter seems to be the popular point of critique when talking about cameras for video. A lot of these reviewers do test hybrid cameras like the Sony A7SIII or a Canon or a Nikon Camera even. Rolling shutter is where when a camera is panned in quick succession, it creates a jelly affect. In movies, the panning is consistently smooth and slow: not as fast as these guys are using for the test. It is not an accurate test.
• When it comes to computers on the other hand, the critics rely on scores provided by a website by Geekbench. They take this number and make a preliminary determination about the performance of a computer. A lot of these critics reviewing computers are either computer enthusiasts or hard core gamers - not the average Joe. They forget that the average Joe is not into gaming or the average Joe is not into fluffing Geekbench scores.
• Some critics will determine that if a computer does not have the latest generation processor, it is a deal breaker. My rebuttal to this would be that if it gets the job done in a reasonable length of time, it is up to the darn job. I would also ask the question: "What it is about a computing device not having the latest generation processor that is making it such a deal breaker? Why do you believe this BS to be true?
• Complaining that elements in a script, finished movie or TV show are unrealistic, not believable or illogical: Seriously? You really want to go down that road?  Let me ask you one question: You spend an entire of your life dealing with reality and now you're telling me that you want more of it? How sad is that? Movies and TV shows that are produced from a written and fully polished screenplay are make believe. They ask the "What if" question. Plus, a lot of the reviews on YouTube complain about elements that are easily refutable. The movies have been made for their entertainment value and not there to satisfy your so called "realistic" expectations. People really want to suspend their disbelief and escape reality for a change.

And it will still continue:

Even if every manufacturer of a product or producer of a movie or TV show were to address all criticisms raised by the so called 'critics', they still won't be happy. They will still find something to criticize about. That is the honest to Zeus truth. They are always on the lookout for anything and everything wrong with a piece of technology or movie or TV production.

And we trust these guys?

The consequence:

The more power we give them, the more we distrust ourselves in making decisions that affect us and our choices in life. Letting someone make some of these decisions for us is letting someone else manage our money when being accused of being incapable of managing it ourselves - when all the while, we are completely capable of managing it ourselves. It undermines our confidence. The same thing is happening when we let critics decide what to buy or tell us what not to buy, they are undermining our confidence in making this decision on our own.

Sure, when large sums of money are involved, you don't want to make the wrong move and lose it all unnecessarily.  We can trust our instincts and factor out any compulsion or temptation that is influencing our decision. We know better that to allow someone to rush us into making a hasty decision like a salesperson urging us to accept the deal he/she is offering right then and there. You especially do not want to do this with investing. Here, you also want to trust your instincts and remove all temptation or impulsiveness from the equation.

But not all critics are created this equally bad:

Some criticism is warranted. Examples include when critics criticized the first two God's not Dead movies, I could see their point. When critics criticized Nicholas Spark's movie The Choice as being predictable, I can absolutely attest to this because I went and watched it and concluded the same. There are instances where critics are right, but for the majority of the cases, they are so wrong on a lot of levels, and this is why I am calling for every person who comes across any of these types of critics to call them out on their BS or at least challenge their analysis of things.

Why I distrust the reviewers:

Time and time again, the reverse was proven true when I conducted the movie experiment some years back. I picked 5 movies that were heavily criticized and 5 that were heavily praised. I found that it was the ones that were heavily criticized were the ones that were really good. It has caused me to analyze the criticisms at hand and determine whether they were constructive or destructive in nature. To be honest, the majority of the criticisms you come across are destructive masquerading as constructive criticism and opinion based. They are not objective, but heavily subjective. This is why you see poor quality movies and TV shows being made and poor quality products being made because no one can win as long as these unqualified critics are running the show.

Critics are always wrong.

When critics told Elvis Presley that he had no talent and that he wasn't going to make it in the music business, we can see how wrong they were and this will never be openly admitted. As for Elvis, look at where he is now. He is the fluffing King of Rock and Roll for crying out loud.

Having said this, there are a few reviewers you can still trust. The key here is objectivity. You need to look for reviewers that are giving their objective view on any piece of tech or movie/TV show. Someone who understands who a particular piece of gear. tech, movie/TV show is aimed at.

So in conclusion, reviewers on YouTube and on the Internet are plentiful and are like the Wild Wild West (not the Will Smith kind). They are super subjective and have nothing of substance to offer except for nitpicking on everything and calling it an objective/constructive criticism or an expression of opinion where no qualification exists. And this is why we shouldn't be taking their criticisms at face value or accepting their criticisms as valid 100% of the time. Asking probing questions to determine how they came to this conclusion about a said product/service, movie or a TV show is key to deciding which critic we can listen to and which ones to ignore right from the get go.

We should be trusting our instincts and not let anyone undermine our confidence in our ability to make these kinds of decisions for ourselves just like we would never let someone manage our money when we are completely capable of doing this ourselves. Sometimes it can be an expensive exercise to try and figure out which product/service or piece of tech worked out for us and which ones didn't. However, if this can build our confidence in ourselves, then I'd say go for it.

We can do this people.

Don't let anyone, and I mean anyone, undermine your confidence and attempt to steal your dreams.