<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Grammar Profiteering?]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[
<p>Better-written online reviews&#0160;<a href="http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~panos/publications/www2011.pdf" target="_self">sell</a> more products. One company <a href="http://behind-the-enemy-lines.blogspot.com/2011/04/want-to-improve-sales-fix-grammar-and.html" target="_self">hired</a> Amazon&#39;s Mechanical Turk to fix errors in online reviews and reported higher sales. Panos Ipeirotis defends the scheme:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ethical? I would say yes. Notice that they are not fixing the polarity  or the content of the reviews. They just change the language to be  correct and error-free. I can see the counter-argument that the writing  style allows us to judge if the review is serious or not. So,  artificially improving the writing style may be considered as  interference with the perceived objectivity of the user-generated  reviews.</p>
<p>But is it ingenious? Yes! It is one of these solutions that is sitting in front of you but you just cannot see it. And this is what makes it ingenious.</p>
</blockquote>
]]></html></oembed>