# data[].attributes.body
My partner was able to highlight some grammar mistakes and asked some questions in regards clarification of what I meant. Also, we discussed how well I summarized one point.
When I revise your Summary, I would check how clear my sentences are. I chose to rewrite the sentences that were confusing and fix the grammar mistakes.

The feedback I received was helpful because it made me consider clarifying some sentences to show that I perfectly understood and summarized it.
My partner was good at summarizing the sources in a clear way.

# data[].attributes.body
- separating my own thoughts from the quotes I plan to use is a great way to avoid plagiarism

by coloring the authors sentences with a deferent color or by using the Q quote Method

we can also paraphrase the quote by changing the order of sentences and using synonyms

Plagiarism can be done by using someones ideas not only words

we always have to cite the sources  we used within our articles as a supporting to our ideas

# data[].attributes.body
Click the circle with a dash below. Then copy and paste the Scrible permalink to your version of the summary article.

# data[].attributes.body
Add your summary paper here by clicking the arrow button in the row below this sentence.
OR
Drag and drop the file into this column.

# data[].attributes.body
COLLAPSE

The first point was about having the quotation marks when a direct quote is used so we know and let the reader know that it is not our idea or our own writing.The second point was about to always mention the author's name ,the page number ,and the year after the citation, otherwise, its considered plagiarism. The last point was about, again, including the quotation marks before the quote and after. Also, it was about including the year after the author's name.

For the second section of the tutorial, the point of the first video was about how to summarize ideas that are not mine using my own words which could be done by including the authors name and yearseparated by a comma and between parentheses. The second point was explaining how to quote and paraphrase different source by  including the quotation marks and the author's name. Moreover, we should imply that we used a part of the quote sentences and not all of them by including ellipsis before the part we did cut.

# data[].attributes.headline
In-Class Work: Synthesis Article & Highlights

# data[].attributes.subject
In-Class Work: Synthesis Article & Highlights

# data[].attributes.body
The main points and sub-points of each section are highlighted throughout based on our in-class discussion.

# data[].attributes.body
Mini Research paper draft1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mini Reaserch paper - Manal Alqarah.docx

# data[].attributes.body
Mini Research paper draft 2

# data[].attributes.body
The questions I used to generate a specific topic.
How business ethics has positively/negatively impacted commerce.

The effect of fake reviews on consumer trust

How reviews/feedback is used to create consumer trust

How do people who started shopping online has been impacted by business ethics.

# data[].attributes.body
My goals were reasonable. I knew what my weak points are and I wanted to improve them. I have problems with conveying what I thought clearly and also the usage of vocabulary is limited. I think I’m good with what I set as goals.

I feel that I well understood academic writing and the genres of summary.

I think I summarized the articles well I didn’t include details and the summary wasn’t very brief. I would like to work on writing clear sentences.  I noticed that I would use same words or transition over and over such as moreover.

# data[].attributes.body
My partner saw that what I wrote was organized and well paraphrased. Also, everything was good but I didn’t use more than 1 source in some paragraphs in addition to having some formatting issues. The given suggestions were very helpful. They were about using the other article was assigned in class, and checking my grammar mistakes. I would get back to the article was discussing how apple set the iOS systems and the battery paragraph to make sure I understood it to paraphrase it well. The feedback was a good one, we even had a discussion about how to explain what was mention in the article.

# data[].attributes.body
I received a good feedback with additional comments showing how clear my statements were in each body paragraph and how good my citation was. I couldn’t read the rest of the suggestion because the handwriting wasn’t clear enough. The feedback was okay. I will work more on the conclusion. The feedback that I gave my partner was about how good the language use was but that she needs to shorten the sentences so they aren’t confusing. I think my partner wrote a clear paragraph with being able to use more than source I would like to do the same.

# data[].attributes.body
This feedback was helpful because I received many comments on my conclusion.  My partner said that my paper ended with a general statement.
Also, that the thesis is clear. One thing that was recommended that I may talk about how to avoid fake reviews.

# data[].attributes.body
What is your research question?

How faking/buying reviews affect the product popularity?

What is your thesis statement?

It seem that most products popularity is made based on the users reviews, yet faking or buying reviews can have the opposite affect on the product.

Why is this an important question to explore?

To have more aware about companies techniques in selling their products and to be cautious when selling or buying a product to customers. Also, because of an obvious improvement the technological field, any one could be a seller/ advertiser  who can influance people based on his own reviews on social media.

Which groups of people will find your paper relevant and useful?

people who trust online-purchasing

Include at least 2 potential sources. What information do you plan on taking

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/226315 > an example of good reviews and why to made them

http://lawfirmsuites.com/2014/01/new-york-shared-law-office-ethics-using-online-customer-reviews-attorney-marketing/ > whats allowed and whats not when advertising

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Business Ethics - APA Page Title (1).docx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A company selling a popular series of guitar-lesson DVDs will pay $250,000 to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceptively advertised its products through online affiliate marketers who falsely posed as ordinary consumers or independent reviewers.

The FTC complaint against Nashville, Tennessee-based Legacy Learning Systems Inc. and its owner, Lester Gabriel Smith, is part of FTC efforts to make sure that advertising to American consumers is truthful and not deceptive, whether the advertisements appear in traditional or newer forms of media.

The Learn and Master Guitar program promoted by Legacy Learning and Smith is sold as a way to learn the guitar at home using DVDs and written materials. According to the FTC's complaint, Legacy Learning advertised using an online affiliate program, through which it recruited "Review Ad" affiliates to promote its courses through endorsements in articles, blog posts, and other online editorial material, with the endorsements appearing close to hyperlinks to Legacy's website. Affiliates received in exchange for substantial commissions on the sale of each product resulting from referrals. According to the FTC, such endorsements generated more than $5 million in sales of Legacy's courses.

The FTC charged that Legacy Learning and Smith disseminated deceptive advertisements by representing that online endorsements written by affiliates reflected the views of ordinary consumers or "independent" reviewers, without clearly disclosing that the affiliates were paid for every sale they generated.

The FTC's revised guidelines on endorsements and testimonials, issued in 2009, explain in general terms when the agency may find endorsements or testimonials unfair or deceptive. Under the guidelines, a positive review by a person connected to the seller - or someone who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product or service - should disclose the material connection between the reviewer and the seller of the product or service.

"Whether they advertise directly or through affiliates, companies have an obligation to ensure that the advertising for their products is not deceptive," said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "Advertisers using affiliate marketers to promote their products would be wise to put in place a reasonable monitoring program to verify that those affiliates follow the principles of truth in advertising."

Under the proposed administrative settlement, Legacy Learning and Smith will pay $250,000. In addition, they have to monitor and submit monthly reports about their top 50 revenue-generating affiliate marketers, and make sure that they are disclosing that they earn commissions for sales and are not misrepresenting themselves as independent users or ordinary consumers. Legacy Learning and Smith also must monitor a random sampling of another 50 of their affiliate marketers, and submit monthly reports to the FTC about the same criteria.

The Commission vote to approve the administrative complaint and proposed consent agreement was 5-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through April 15, 2011, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the Invitation To Comment part of the "Supplementary Information" section. Comments in electronic form should be submitted using the following Web link: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/legacylearningsystems and following the instructions on the web-based form. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has actually violated the law. The issuance of the administrative complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be tried in a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. A consent order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC's online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC's Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. 1023055)
(Legacy NR)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Firm to Pay FTC $250,000 to Settle Charges That It Used Misleading Online "Consumer" and "Independent" Reviews

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A company selling a popular series of guitar-lesson DVDs will pay $250,000 to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceptively advertised its products through online affiliate marketers who falsely posed as ordinary consumers or independent reviewers. The FTC complaint against Nashville, Tennessee-based Legacy Learning Systems Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
truth in advertising and marketing and other ftc regulations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Truth in Advertising and Marketing and Other FTC Regulations - HG.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When consumers see or hear an advertisement on the Internet, radio, in print, on a billboard, on television, or anywhere else, federal law says that the ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SMG prof finds competition fuels fake entries

If you're combing Yelp reviews to decide where to eat, you're likely to be misled or even duped, according to Georgios Zervas, coauthor of a recent study concluding that at least 16 percent of the reviews are fake. The researchers found that the worst offenders are restaurants seeking to offset negative write-ups, that chain restaurants are the least likely to commit review fraud, and that restaurants sometimes take the low ground by posting fraudulent negative reviews for establishments competing for the same customer base.

Although they make efforts to ensure the veracity of their content, sites like Yelp, TripAdvisor, and Angie's List remain easy prey, conclude Zervas, a School of Management assistant professor of marketing, and Harvard Business School's Michael Luca (GRS'11) in their report Fake It Till You Make It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud, now under review for publication.

The study was cited in a recent Wall Street Journal blogpost prompted by the New York attorney general's recent Operation Clean Turf initiative uncovering manipulation in the reputation management industry. That investigation led to 19 companies agreeing to stop commissioning fake online reviews and facing fines of $350,000. After its results were reported on additional blogs and business news sites, Zervas' study triggered a response from Yelp's vice president for communications and public affairs on the site's official blog. The study "confirms something we have long known: businesses that don't have a good reputation online will try to create one by submitting phony reviews," the response reads. Yelp says its filter algorithm sifts through its more than 42 million reviews, rooting out the 25 percent found to be fakes or submitted by the businesses themselves.

BU Today: Did you discover anything particularly surprising in your study?

Zervas: One thing that was slightly surprising, not so much to me but to most people, is the proportion of suspected fake reviews that Yelp removes-approximately one quarter of all reviews submitted to Yelp are not published. That's about 10 million reviews.

What are some of the concerns your study raises?

The main concern is for firms like Yelp and TripAdvisor. Platforms that crowd-source reviews rely on the integrity of these reviews, and fraudulent reviews pose a major threat to their trustworthiness. Furthermore, consumers should be concerned that fake reviews are leading them to suboptimal choices, and businesses should be aware that some negative reviews might come from their competitors.

How much of an impact do sites like Yelp have on a business?

My coauthor Michael Luca did a great study on this and found that having an extra star on Yelp causes the revenue of a business to rise by 5 to 10 percent, so there's a direct connection between Yelp ratings and a business' bottom line.

How can consumers view these sites more critically?

I think there are many signals on Yelp that consumers can combine to make up their minds. The way I use Yelp is, I read individual reviews, trying to be aware not just of whether they're fake, but beyond that, whether they come from consumers who are like myself. There are plenty of biases in reviews besides their being fake or real. The other thing I look at is the number of reviews a business has. I have a lot more faith in a business with 3½ stars and 100 reviews than I do in one with 4 stars and just 3 or 4 reviews. That's common sense. Also, when available, you can use sites, like Expedia, that allow consumers to review a business only once it's confirmed that they are paying customers.

Are there any data on who is more likely to write a review, those who had a terrible experience or those who had a great one?

Not in our study, but in general people seem more likely to contribute reviews after extreme experiences, either positive or negative.

Are the fake reviews the same as false advertising?

According to the Federal Trade Commission, a review is considered deceptive advertising if any material connection between the reviewer and the business being reviewed is not disclosed in the review. In a recent example of enforcing these regulations, the New York attorney general went after reputation management companies, which produce fake reviews in bulk.

How fine a line is there between a fake restaurant review and one written by a friend at the urging of the restaurant's owner?

The friendship between the reviewer and the restaurant owner is a material connection-information that third parties reading the review might want to know before they buy a product or a service, and therefore it should be disclosed. So this review is still fraudulent.

How reliable are algorithms for weeding out fake reviews? In lay terms, what are the most prominent giveaways?

The answer is: I don't know, because I don't know what they're doing-it's something that companies like Yelp would rather keep secret. But from my experience reading many reviews over the past year, I think Yelp does a decent job of catching fake reviews.

Do some surviving reviews stand out as suspect?

Sometimes you might see people who have reviewed one or two businesses, but have zero other reviews, no friends on Yelp, and give glowing five-star reviews to these two businesses-that seems a bit fishy. Also, I remember one case cited in a recent New York Times article: someone wrote a wonderful five-star review for a dentist following a string of really bad one-star reviews; one of these one-star reviews mentioned that the dentist's drill broke inside the patient's mouth. Context can provide a lot of clues about what's fake.

Isn't this problem likely only to worsen?

Yes, as more consumers are basing their decisions on crowd-sourced reviews, there's a greater incentive for businesses to cheat. And so far the consequences have been extremely small, though the New York fines are a small step in the right direction.

So what's the best way to get reliable information?

Beyond online word of mouth, use off-line word of mouth if that's available. Mine your own social network as much as possible.

Would the system benefit if more people made a habit of reviewing places they've patronized?

Yes, the more information we put online, the better the quality of the signal other consumers are going to get. More reviews will enhance the trustworthiness of review platforms. For example, currently there is a lot of self-selection among reviewers, who are usually more likely to write a review for extremely positive or extremely negative experiences. It would be much better if people also wrote about their moderate experiences.

What else can consumers to do keep these forums honest?

Most platforms provide tools on their websites for consumers to flag suspicious reviews. So beyond writing reviews of your own, you can flag a suspicious review, and the Yelp team will take a close look at it.

I know of a place that gets consistently scathing reviews for mistreating customers, especially those with children, yet people swarm there. Do negative reviews ever improve business?

Yes, there are cases when negative reviews might make you take positive action. For example, if I'm someone who doesn't like children around me, that's a good place for me to hang out. So, for businesses, there can also be positive value in negative reviews.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Yelp Reviews: Can You Trust Them? | BU Today | Boston University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SMG prof finds competition fuels fake entries If you're combing Yelp reviews to decide where to eat, you're likely to be misled or even duped, according to Georgios Zervas, coauthor of a recent study concluding that at least 16 percent of the reviews are fake.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Apple has confirmed the suspicions of many iPhone owners by revealing it does deliberately slow down some models of the iPhone as they age.

Many customers have long suspected that Apple slows down older iPhones to encourage people to upgrade.

The company has now said it does slow down some models as they age, but only because the phones' battery performance diminishes over time.

Apple said it wanted to "prolong the life" of customers' devices.

The practice was confirmed after a customer shared performance tests on Reddit, suggesting their iPhone 6S had slowed down considerably as it had aged but had suddenly sped up again after the battery had been replaced.

"I used my brother's iPhone 6 Plus, and his was faster than mine? This is when I knew something was wrong," wrote TeckFire.

Technology website Geekbench then analysed several iPhones running versions of the iOS operating system and found some of them did indeed appear to have been deliberately slowed down.

'Less capable'

Apple has now confirmed that it made changes to iOS to manage ageing lithium-ion batteries in some devices, since the batteries diminish over time.

"Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of supplying peak current demands when in cold conditions, [when they] have a low battery charge or as they age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly shutting down to protect its electronic components," the company said.

"Last year, we released a feature for iPhone 6, iPhone 6s and iPhone SE to smooth out the instantaneous peaks only when needed to prevent the device from unexpectedly shutting down during these conditions.

"We've now extended that feature to iPhone 7 with iOS 11.2, and plan to add support for other products in the future.

"Our goal is to deliver the best experience for customers."

'Taking away performance'

Replacing an old battery in one of the affected models should return the phone to its former speed. Doing so costs £79 in the UK and $79 (£59) in the US.

"They should be more transparent about it," said Chris Green from the tech consultancy Bright Bee.

"You're taking away performance that somebody has paid for. If you're going to slow down the phone over time, you should explain why it is happening, so people understand it is ultimately for their benefit.

"But I do see where they're coming from. By slowing the phone, it does help mitigate the problem of the diminishing battery."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apple has confirmed the suspicions of many iPhone owners by revealing it does deliberately slow down some models of the iPhone as they age. Many customers have long suspected that Apple slows down older iPhones to encourage people to upgrade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Barclays said Wednesday that Apple's decision to replace aging batteries for $29 instead of $79, following reports that it slowed down iPhones on purpose, could be bad for iPhone sales.

"While this is a good PR move for Apple to resolve the issue, we are concerned it could be a mild headwind for iPhone unit sales if more iPhone users decide to take the offer instead of upgrading to a new device," Barclays said.

Barclays' analyst Mark Moskowitz estimated that a huge chunk - 77 percent of iPhone users - are among those eligible to upgrade the batteries inside their smartphones.

"In our base case scenario, 10% of those 519M users take the $29 offer, and around 30% of them decide not to buy a new iPhone this year. This means around 16M iPhone sales could be at risk, creating ~4% downside to our current revenue estimate for C2018."

Barclays says it remains neutral on Apple stock. It believes Wall Street is "too optimistic about the iPhone X super cycle" but thinks Apple's growth in services and the new tax law are good for the company's business.

Apple said last week that it would begin to replace aging batteries in late January, but subsequently said that it's able to do so immediately.

The company made the decision following backlash after it was revealed that it was purposefully slowing down the processing speed on some iPhones - which meant older iPhones would run apps and software slower - in an effort to maximize battery performance.

Now, with replacement batteries, users will be able to use the phone at its maximum performance levels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Apple's battery replacement program could be bad for iPhone sales, Barclays says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Barclays said Wednesday that Apple's decision to replace aging batteries for $29 instead of $79, following reports that it slowed down iPhones on purpose, could be bad for iPhone sales.