Reviews discussion

This thread has been created to facilitate general discussion about reviews. Please use it to discuss in civil and friendly terms, specific reviews or reviews and reviewing in general.

The former "Inappropriate reviews" thread has now been closed, and a new "Reviews reporting thread" created here:

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28343 

That's a good idea, I really need to go back and revise some of my reviews because I know there are numerous spelling mistakes.

Angelo wrote: http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=89329 The remark at the end is rather useless in 5 years time.

counter-report: I don't see what's the actual problem.

Gatot did something like that in other reviews as well. I believe that as a P.S. it's of no major problem, not at all inappropriately (a notion which some still don't understand). Plus he just sounds enthuziastic to make some publicity regarding the event.




Edited by Ricochet - September 09 2006 at 10:23

Ricochet wrote: counter-report: I don't see what's the actual problem. Gatot did something like that in other reviews as well. I believe that as a P.S. it's of no major problem, not at all inappropriately (a notion which some still don't understand). Plus he just sounds enthuziastic to make some publicity regarding the event.

So? I thought the first post in this forum contained a reference to some review guidelines, which I read minutes before reading this review. I'm sure he is enthousiastic,and I'm sure there's a reason he's an honorary collaborator (he write some of the best reviews on this site) but other people get referred to the forum if they 'pull a trick' like this.

Besides: the same first post on this thread requests a report and a counter-report (if desired) from the reviewer himself. If this is the way the acknowledged 'Prog reviewers' are going to counter reports made here by others, like myself, I'm out of here - richocet bullets are the last I want to catch .
Especially since the word 'inappropriately' was not used by me, nor in the title of this thread.

Trickster F. wrote: Moreover, as a collab I am sure he will edit out the last paragraph from his review once the time has passed.

Possibly, but that doesn't weaken my arguments above.



Edited by Angelo - September 09 2006 at 11:40

Nice move 

Let me add to this discussion that I was a bit pissed off about the first two reactions to my report. I still stand by it, but want to make clear here that my attack on Rico and Trickster being 'Prog reviewers' was completely off-topic. Apologies to both.

Back to the discussion - or rather, to the next one?


Edited by Angelo - September 09 2006 at 18:23

Next step should be perhaps consider valid a review with 100 words minimum instead of the present 50 words. Below 100 words reviews should not appear in the homepage and be counted as a single rating. Just an idea!

Atkingani wrote: Next step should be perhaps consider valid a review with 100 words minimum instead of the present 50 words. Below 100 words reviews should not appear in the homepage and be counted as a single rating. Just an idea!

Australian wrote: Atkingani wrote: Next step should be perhaps consider valid a review with 100 words minimum instead of the present 50 words. Below 100 words reviews should not appear in the homepage and be counted as a single rating. Just an idea!   That's a good Idea and will encourage people to write decent length reviews. Ratings without reviews should be discarded all together...

Australian wrote: At least when someone writes a review, even a short one they justify their rating.

That's true, but most reviews below 100 words contain any information besides "this is a great album" or "this album stinks" - in a slightly more elaborate way.

I could agree with a 100 word minimum, and maybe M@X can add a simple check at the review entry form that warns reviewers if post a review with less than 100 words. That warning might even persuade some of the people that vote stars without reviewing to add some explanatory text.

For me, and I guess for lots of others, the real motivator to buy an album or to leave it alone, is not the number of stars it gets, but rather the motivation behind it.

Australian wrote: <P =Msonormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">I think people forget that 3 stars means good, and therefore feel inclined to give every album with any good moments four or five stars.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN>

    
I agree, but I also think people don't really pay attention to how the system works. It is devised to rate according to a prog collection. That is how I rate. There are albums that I absolutely love, but don't think they are must haves for everyone. We should encourage people to use it as intended.