Non-reviewer reviews....

There are many, many reviews in PA that haven't been written by a prog-reviewer or a collaborator. In fact, I'd say that those are the bulk of the review-catalogue (even though, for obvious reasons, they don't have the same value for overall ratings as collaborator reviews). I'm speaking for myself and for many other non-reviewers who write at least decent reviews: I've seen and read many of great quality (quality has nothing to do with status) being lost among lots of one-paragraph, useless bashing or worshipping reviews that don't say anything. My point is, could there be a way to at least put the non-collaborator reviews in length order or something? Length is NOT the measure of quality, but at least of work and effort. If there isn't a factor that can absolutely tell a good review from a lesser one, at least there are factors that prove how much TIME an individual has spent trying to come up with something worthy of the readers' eyes. It's a matter of respect after all. Again, maybe this is impossible, but I had to say it, as I see lots and lots of completely weak reviews at the top, and the better ones lost at the bottom or near it. There should be a way to recognize effort at least. I know this is not a WRITING site but a MUSIC site so we shouln't care about the quality of the reviews...or should we? From what I see in the forum, everybody here has sensibility and loves arts (at least ONE for sure, music), so maybe we could try to serve our art in the better possible way, which is giving those who need information the best tools to find USEFUL reviews.