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.

Or you could write a whole bunch of good, insightful reviews and try and become a PR or collab to get your reviews at the top.

No, it is a good point TT. The problem would be in the practicalities though. As you say, length does not automatically equate to quality. The side effect would probably be that the poor reviews simply got longer.

Uh, wrongo. Length is a true measure of qaulity. Look, I spend about five, six minutes tops pumping all kinds of crap into my reviews. Be it, "Further proving that the main reason Ian invented God was so that God could create humans to buy Aqualung," or, "Wow, I bet Ian's hands were tired after that flute thumpin'! Heh, heh," or "Who the crap IS Joni Mitchell anyway? Really?" That sort of thing. In fact, I essentially just summed up my Passion Play review, only it was about 87,459 words longer than that.

Edited by The Whistler - June 05 2007 at 04:14

The T wrote: 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. Thank you for reading.

I agree with you 100%...of course, the length is not a measure of quality, but if nothing else, the page will be "closer to the target", that is, better and more comprehensive in a majority of cases (I think).

The other parameter that should (could) also be taken into consideration is a number of reviewed albums by a certain forum member - so, the after the colabs/reviewers will go guests/members with more reviewed albums, and on the bottom fanboys with only two or three reviews. I trust more to the reviewers with more knowledge, and bigger diversity in taste. And the honest effort.

The T wrote: clarke2001 wrote: I agree with you 100%...of course, the length is not a measure of quality, but if nothing else, the page will be "closer to the target", that is, better and more comprehensive in a majority of cases (I think). The other parameter that should (could) also be taken into consideration is a number of reviewed albums by a certain forum member - so, the after the colabs/reviewers will go guests/members with more reviewed albums, and on the bottom fanboys with only two or three reviews. I trust more to the reviewers with more knowledge, and bigger diversity in taste. And the honest effort.   Very good point! ... that has a lot of truth to it: probably the worst reviews (besides those very unintelligible ones) are those that seemed written by a fanboy or a hateboy. Usually, fanboys and hateboys only write reviews that have to do with their fanboy-bands or hated bands.... That's true! The most bands and reviews a reviewer has analyzed, the more we can trust his judgement (of course this is NOT abolute, as many great reviewers only review a couple of albums and then dissappear.) But there's some truth in it, and a lot. Many good reviews buried in the bottom.....

I'd love to see it that way, but I can live with scrolling as well...

Oh what the heck, I only respond here to compliment  The T with the fact that even though he is now a PR himself, he still sympathises with the more serious guests.


Edited by Angelo - June 19 2007 at 15:30

Last week I added the DVD After Crying Live to this site and today I noticed that there are two non-review ratings with two stars  In my opinion these two star reviews don't match at all with the quality of the DVD and are only made by a sick mind who wants to destroy the good ratings. Of course you can say that it's all subjective but this DVD delivers a great band performance, a wonderful lightshow, a good sound quality, a large and very comprehensive track list, etc. SO PLEASE STOP THE POSSIBILITY OF NON-REVIEW RATINGS !!!!

Thanks and now some clappies from M@X , The T

Melomaniac wrote: KeleCableII wrote: We could use a system like Amazon where people vote on whether that review was helpful or not which makes the short/fanboy/whatever review fall to the bottom and the higher quality ones rise. Urban Dictionary also has a similar system.     One problem though : most of Hughes' (Sean Trane) first reviews would be quickly dispatched...

erik neuteboom wrote: Last week I added the DVD After Crying Live to this site and today I noticed that there are two non-review ratings with two stars  In my opinion these two star reviews don't match at all with the quality of the DVD and are only made by a sick mind who wants to destroy the good ratings. Of course you can say that it's all subjective but this DVD delivers a great band performance, a wonderful lightshow, a good sound quality, a large and very comprehensive track list, etc. SO PLEASE STOP THE POSSIBILITY OF NON-REVIEW RATINGS !!!!

Christ Erik.... what do you think is important here... some stupid average rating or the review itself.  Do you think anyone here cares about what some dipsh*t, who has no 'street cred' here, has to say about with a review or ....I lose what your problem is....DOESN'T have to say about the album/DVD. The reviews that matter are from those who show they know prog... I think you have proven that you are one reviewer to be listened to.  Be happy with that.. life too short brother....

again...just like PR and PP.... the owners have said and said clearly... the non-review ratings STAY... they want them here for the non-English speakers. 

do I agree... no..

do we have to live with and stop whining about it... damn right we do.