Consumer Category
The problem with online reviews
Jennifer McClelland | RSS | Thu, Dec 31 2009 | 0 Comments
I’m sitting in a hotel lobby this week writing posts. If you noticed last week the pitch was about Hotwire and Priceline. I was trying to book a trip. I was determined to find something good and didn’t want to take the risk with either of those websites. However, I just gave into it and booked something on the sites. I ended up at a pretty nice hotel in downtown St. Louis.
However, when I went to look at reviews on the internet about the hotel, the reviews were all bad. Some were bad for no reason, some were bad because the reviewer actually had a bad experience.
Now, here’s the problem I am having with places that have been reviewed on the internet, this particulary pertains to places on trip, hotel, and food review sites: People are more likely to complain than report a satisfactory experience. I am guilty of it: a lot of times, I end up writing about when something makes me angry or I am unhappy with a situation.
You will always have a few people who are going to report on how the situation was regardless of whether or not the experience was good; but more often people will complain than brag. Honestly, the entire situation isn’t very fair to the establishments.
For example, the hotel I’m staying at has particularly bad reviews. I believe on Yelp, this hotel is rated a 2 out of 5, which is not very good at all. It all has to do with the fact that there isn’t wireless internet for free in the rooms (which is stated on the hotel’s website and is fairly common knowledge in my opinion), parking isn’t free (but there aren’t many places in the downtown area that hae free parking), and the bathrooms are small.
I believe that most places should be given a fair chance and that you can’t go by what all the reviews are.
Related posts:Federal Trade Commission decides how bloggers should disclose reviews
The Pitch – When Online Companies Rip You or Someone You know Off!
Tags: common knowledge, satisfactory experience, bad experience
Note to Apple: It would be nice to be able to pick any app we’d like
Jennifer McClelland | RSS | Wed, Dec 30 2009 | 1 Comment
Apple has a serious downfall when it comes to their iphone and software development kit or sdk for those in the know. The problem with the ingenious design is the fact that the “apps” are only accessible once the app is approved by Apple and designated.
Don’t even get me started on the Google Voice fiasco that just happened and landed Apple in some hot water with the FCC….
Now the iphone application store has rejected a new application because the application allows the reading of the Karma Sutra. It is to be noted that the book reader Eucalyptus does not come with any books, but the K.S. is available for download onto devices and could be read at another time.
Whether it be the fact that Apple’s development team may decide that your application isn’t good enough for their devices or good enough to be released to their “cloud,” there are different places for software developers to go to have their programs viewed by many.
Apple has also been thinking of releasing a “net book” also. I suppose the net book would run like net books that run on Windows or Linux and are just able to run simple programs or surf the internet. Apple would undoubtedly make a net book that would be impossible to make programs for and far less powerful than any of the current mac books that are out there today.
The mac/pc commercials make me so mad because the pc just gives up when “the Megan” asks for a computer that doesn’t have software issues like crashing or viruses. Well guess what “Megan,” Mac’s have all those same problems too. As a matter of fact, I have been on a Mac many times in the past and gotten their version of a blue screen of death. I mean the iMac may have been the worst personal computer I have ever used, however there are so many people who think that the Macintosh name and product line is the best thing that has ever happened to the computer industry.
Whatever the reason, I think that people will enjoy PC’s and Windows mobile, Android, WebOS, and Symbian phones for much longer once the novelty of the iPhone wears off (like everyone knows it will).
Related posts:Adobe wants to give Apple a little constructive criticism
Tags: google, webos, iphone
The most popular energy drinks and what you can find in them
Jennifer McClelland | RSS | Wed, Dec 30 2009 | 2 Comments
There is a huge market right now for energy drinks. When it comes to growth in the carbonated and non carbonated beverages markets, the only things causing growth is energy drinks and diet sodas.
Since energy drinks are so insanely popular right now (I’ll go ahead and blame it on the fact that no one is getting the amount of sleep they need and are working longer hours), here are some things to watch out for with your favorites.
*Remember, if you can, go for the Sugar Free or “Low Carb” versions of the drinks, they nearly eliminate calories and you won’t get that weird sugar rush.*
5 Hour Energy
The 5 hour energy shot claims to give you five hours of energy without crashing or jitters and it’s sugar free!
While it isn’t published exactly how much caffeine is in one of these 2 ounce shots, the company claims it’s about as much as a cup of coffee. In my opinion, this is a better alternative to coffee because I have a very coffee-intolerant stomach. If you’re a coffee drinker or an energy drink fan, like myself, then the caffeine in one of these should be just enough to give you a quick pick me up, but you may not feel the effects for the full five hours.
Red Bull (The 8 ounce can)
The regular version of this drink has 110 calories and 27 grams of sugar. It also contains 76 mg of caffeine, which is less than most restaurant coffees. It also comes with Taurine and B-Vitamins. B-vitamins are supposed to help boost the metabolism, but reports say that taurine work against that effect (and sugar definitely doesn’t help in the fight against calories).
Red Bull has been deemed safe by a 2008 research study that was presented to the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. There were no negative side effects on those who drank a can.
Red Bull is my particular favorite. I keep a 4-pack in my fridge at all times. In my opinion, the sugar free version of this drink is better than the regular version and you aren’t left with that awful “I just drank syrup” taste in your mouth.
AMP
This is the energy drink that is supposed to be from Mountain Dew. The 16.9 ounce can has 220 calories, 58 grams of sugar, and 142 mg of caffeine. If these numbers are discouraging, there is also a sugar free version of this drink.
This can be considered a big Red Bull, except it tastes very different in my opinion. It has all the same supplements like taurine, ginseng, and guarana. From personal experience, if you like this drink it is typically cheaper in the four packs than Red Bull because it comes in a can that’s twice the size.
Sobe Energy Adrenaline Rush
This has been deemed the “Worst Energy Drink” due to it’s 260 calories, 66 grams of sugar, and 152 mg of caffeine in a 16.9 ounce can. It contains D-ribose, L-carnitine, and taurine which are natural compounds that your body uses to maintain its metabolism.
Due to the high levels of sugar in this drink, there is a higher risk for a fairly massive sugar crash afterward. This drink has the same amount of sugar as 5.5 scoops of Edy’s slow churned Rocky Road ice cream.
I remember when Adrenaline Rush came in the smaller 8.9 ounce cans. It was the very first energy drink I ever had. I honestly can’t stand the way they taste now and their sugar free version leaves something to be desired.
Related posts:Make your own coffee at home
Tags: american societies, diet sodas, federation of american societies for experimental biolo
Employers may treat candidates unfairly in these ways
Jennifer McClelland | RSS | Tue, Dec 29 2009 | 0 Comments
In the recession, some employers are finding themselves in the position to leave a lot of candidates hanging when it comes to finding employees. Some employers are actually taking advantage of the desperation that many candidates are feeling and they are doing some things that they may not have done in the past. According to World News and Report here are a few things that employers have been doing recently that can be seen as a bit…unsavory.
When an employer has no sympathy for a potential candidate’s time it leads to frustration on the candidate’s part. Employers have been canceling interviews at the last minute with out a reason or an apology. Some are just wasting the candidate’s time by not paying attention during the interview and this is troubling because (and I should know) a candidate spends a lot of time preparing for an interview; this includes looking up the company and reading into the company’s philosophy and mission.
When an employer doesn’t share the company’s timeline to hire with the candidate it is also quite frustrating. A hiring manager always knows when they need someone. They know the time frame that they will be hiring in and not telling a candidate is annoying to all candidates.
Not sharing what kind of salary they pay is also really annoying, especially when they expect a candidate to give what they think they should be paid. There really isn’t any reason as to why a manger wouldn’t share this information. They really should give you some kind of range for you to expect to be paid and this would clear up the entire awkward situation that comes about when its time to talk money.
Finally, this one is the one that gets under my skin, when employers fail to notify a candidate that they are no longer up for consideration for the position. This is rude and extremely common. Many times a candidate sits by the phone (or in my case, shies away from a week vacation) to wait to hear from an employer. A simple email could do if the employer is no longer interested in the candidate.
Here’s one just from my own opinion book: If you’re an employer don’t tell a candidate to expect an interview and then don’t answer emails or the phone when the candidate calls. And give them an interview if you say you will.
Related posts:Acing your interview: Do’s and Do Not’s
Tags: apology, why a manger, paying attention
Your FICO score shouldn’t affect your job prospects
Jennifer McClelland | RSS | Mon, Dec 28 2009 | 2 Comments
Credit makes the world go around it appears, at least in our capitalistic nation. It seems these days there isn’t much that you can do without it; including getting that job you’ve been so desperately searching for.
It might sound crazy to you, because it definitely sounds fairly insane to me, but when you apply for a job and agree to a background check, the potential employer can also check your credit history. To me, this is not any potential employer’s business. What credit follies I may have made in the past I am obviously trying to rectify by getting a job and it will be very difficult for me to fix anything without a job.
Thanks to a steadily declining job market, credit scores are on the decline. People are getting behind on credit card payments, going into foreclosure, and filing for bankruptcy protection. So finding a job with a bad credit score is a double edged sword.
According to those who are for the credit score check prior to hiring an employee money problems could mean that the person has a disorder in their life that could lead to poor work habits, including employee theft. These same people said that those with great credit histories are less likely to have poor work habits and be trustworthy as well as reliable.
I, as well as some experts, think there is no clear link between a credit score and history and the job that an individual can do. I am not saying that there is something wrong with having a pristine credit history, just that you can’t count out those who don’t. Credit reports simply don’t account for layoffs, the overall economic conditions regarding unemployment, and things like medical bills or identity theft.
There is someone I know who is the best person with money. He actually is the biggest saver I’ve ever met. Unfortunately, through a couple of bad business deals and poor judgments of character, this man’s credit fell to a very low number. These kinds of things stay on your credit report for seven years for the most part. Think about it, if you can start your credit history when you’re 18, do you think you’re the same person at 25? How about the difference between 23 and 30?
I think that if an employer is going to check an applicant’s credit history, perhaps he or she should give the applicant the chance to explain blemishes on their credit report rather than just judging that applicant for things that may be nearly a decade old. Even though I would still not agree with the practice, I think that this would at least give the applicant a chance to explain the situation instead of just being thought of as a “bad prospect” to a potential employer.
Related posts:The factors that combine to create your FICO score
Your Credit Score and You!
What determines your credit score?
Tags: credit card payments, economic conditions, double edged sword
