Reviews discussion

Longer is not always better and it may get harder to read. But at the same time we're not all trained writers, and it may take some exercise to get some _real_information_ into 75 words. So, in order to write an informational review, it may still be wise to take 150 words as a guideline for the minimum. Force yourself to write something with actual content...

(regarding the end of the last sentence: is there a way to 'strike through' ellipses? )


Edited by Angelo - October 18 2008 at 11:23

That's not striking through ellipses, it strikes through the air above them. 

(btw, getting back on topic soon? )

NotAProghead wrote: ^ I think it's enough to tell Bogdan to re-write his review and to swear on the Bible (or any other Holy Book, according to his choice) never use copy-paste function for such purposes. Though, if new rule, no less than 150 words in review, will be applied, the problem will be sold automatically - both reviews will be invisible.

I just clicked on a few of his reviews at random:

Note the similarities in these Porcupine In Absentia reviews openings (the first is a the start of a long review by Akin):

This album is highly regarded among PT fans, if not their most well regarded, but it was a deception for me, because there are some great songs, but their tendency to become more and more alternative pop/rock spoils the band....
http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=87446

b-...'s is much shorter, and this is the start of it, and dated June 14, 2007

" This album is highly regarded among PT fans, if not their most well regarded, but it was a deception for me, because there are some great songs, but their tendency to become more and more alternative pop/rock....
http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=125714

Logan wrote: I just clicked on a few of his reviews at random: Note the similarities in these Porcupine In Absentia reviews openings (the first is a the start of a long review by Akin): This album is highly regarded among PT fans, if not their most well regarded, but it was a deception for me, because there are some great songs, but their tendency to become more and more alternative pop/rock spoils the band.... http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=87446 b-...'s is much shorter, and this is the start of it, and dated June 14, 2007 " This album is highly regarded among PT fans, if not their most well regarded, but it was a deception for me, because there are some great songs, but their tendency to become more and more alternative pop/rock.... http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=125714

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Angelo wrote: Longer is not always better and it may get harder to read. But at the same time we're not all trained writers, and it may take some exercise to get some _real_information_ into 75 words. So, in order to write an informational review, it may still be wise to take 150 words as a guideline for the minimum. Force yourself to write something with actual content... (regarding the end of the last sentence: is there a way to 'strike through' ellipses? )   That's true Angelo, it's wise to make 150 words reviews, specially for a couple of reasons: A decent review at least needs: 1.- Introduction. 2.- General description of the album. 3.- Best tracks 4.- Influences 5.- Justification of the rating Do you believe this can be done in 100 words? Ivàn

It can be done, as I said, by a trained and experienced writer...

Windhawk wrote: Heh, with a 150 word limit about half of my reviews will disappear. Are they really that bad and uninformative...?

...like Olav.


Edited by Angelo - October 19 2008 at 14:16

Worse - it may be a fact that a band is a Genesis clone, in which case it's not a review anymore. A review should express the opinion of the reviewer, concerning the contents of an album.

Angelo wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Angelo wrote: Longer is not always better and it may get harder to read. But at the same time we're not all trained writers, and it may take some exercise to get some _real_information_ into 75 words. So, in order to write an informational review, it may still be wise to take 150 words as a guideline for the minimum. Force yourself to write something with actual content... (regarding the end of the last sentence: is there a way to 'strike through' ellipses? )   That's true Angelo, it's wise to make 150 words reviews, specially for a couple of reasons: A decent review at least needs: 1.- Introduction. 2.- General description of the album. 3.- Best tracks 4.- Influences 5.- Justification of the rating Do you believe this can be done in 100 words? Ivàn It can be done, as I said, by a trained and experienced writer... Windhawk wrote: Heh, with a 150 word limit about half of my reviews will disappear. Are they really that bad and uninformative...? ...like Olav.

Hm. Two points:

1. I don't think influences are a vital point, since a) I might not know the influence, b) it's perhaps a bit prejudicial, c) I really don't care about them much.
2. The general description can probably act as a justification in most cases.

Angelo wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Angelo wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Angelo wrote: Longer is not always better and it may get harder to read. But at the same time we're not all trained writers, and it may take some exercise to get some _real_information_ into 75 words. So, in order to write an informational review, it may still be wise to take 150 words as a guideline for the minimum. Force yourself to write something with actual content... (regarding the end of the last sentence: is there a way to 'strike through' ellipses? )   That's true Angelo, it's wise to make 150 words reviews, specially for a couple of reasons: A decent review at least needs: 1.- Introduction. 2.- General description of the album. 3.- Best tracks 4.- Influences 5.- Justification of the rating Do you believe this can be done in 100 words? Ivàn It can be done, as I said, by a trained and experienced writer... Windhawk wrote: Heh, with a 150 word limit about half of my reviews will disappear. Are they really that bad and uninformative...? ...like Olav. Hm. Two points: 1. I don't think influences are a vital point, since a) I might not know the influence, b) it's perhaps a bit prejudicial, c) I really don't care about them much. 2. The general description can probably act as a justification in most cases. Hmm. I never read Iván's post as saying all 5 should be separate items. If one paragraph fulfils the need of 2 items, they're still there...   Influences are debatable perhaps, as for older bands they are likely already in the bio. For new bands, that doesn't hold and they definitely should be part of the review to serve others than you, who might be interested. zafreth wrote: Angelo wrote: Worse - it may be a fact that a band is a Genesis clone, in which case it's not a review anymore. A review should express the opinion of the reviewer, concerning the contents of an album. As the Ivan example of what have to have a review i add  this: Arguments why you think that album is good or not. That is just using other words for "the justification of the rating", and "the opinion of the reviewer, concerning the contents of an album." if I'm not mistaken. Guess we agree on that then, Zafreth.

yeap my friend