Reviews discussion

Just get Ivan in here, he will do an unbiased legal analysis

Negoba wrote: There's a big difference between having suspicions and laying out your case. Despite seeing an obvious pattern and having enough experience to know how that pattern typically happens, you still have to grant each individual reasonable benefit of the doubt before you call them out.

I agree, the calling out was uncool on my part.

I am not 30 years in music, as John is, but I am 20+ yrs in international business. So - there are plenty of folks who just work their job, and always some others,who think they are smart enough to play their own game.

Nothing strange, people are all the same, but on musical site speaking about music,this discussion reminds business meeting too much , Possibly it's great, businessmen started to play music, almost summer of love...

Edited by snobb - December 23 2010 at 13:28

Easy Money wrote: Dean wrote: Easy Money wrote: No, I think phony reviews are very easy to spot. Next time one comes on the front page I will report it. Any artist is going to get attract the occasional weird review, but when an artist is attracting a lot of those kind of reviews its because they have been soliciting reviews through fan clubs, web sites etc. Gaaah!!!! That's not fact, that's not proof, that's not evidence. If you are going to make statements like that then you have to present substantiated irrefutable proof. Gut-feel and intuition is unacceptable. Well, I know a web site is not a classroom, but you wouldn't last 5 minutes in a room full of teenagers with that kind of thinking. Cops know it too, when it doesn't make sense there is a reason, things happen because people want them to.

What's that supposed to mean? You wouldn't last 5 femtoseconds in my lab by guessing and supposing - which is as irrelevant to this as your classroom comment is.

Dean wrote: Easy Money wrote: Dean wrote: Easy Money wrote: No, I think phony reviews are very easy to spot. Next time one comes on the front page I will report it. Any artist is going to get attract the occasional weird review, but when an artist is attracting a lot of those kind of reviews its because they have been soliciting reviews through fan clubs, web sites etc. Gaaah!!!! That's not fact, that's not proof, that's not evidence. If you are going to make statements like that then you have to present substantiated irrefutable proof. Gut-feel and intuition is unacceptable. Well, I know a web site is not a classroom, but you wouldn't last 5 minutes in a room full of teenagers with that kind of thinking. Cops know it too, when it doesn't make sense there is a reason, things happen because people want them to. What's that supposed to mean? You wouldn't last 5 femtoseconds in my lab by guessing and supposing - which is as irrelevant to this as your classroom comment is.

All throughout the day we size up situations and use past experience to make wise choices. There's no time for lengthy judicial procedings, we have common sense. But when an obviously bogus review shows up on the front page we are lost and clueless, time for a lengthy debate and an oblique look at every possible angle, yep, its still bogus.

Easy Money wrote: All throughout the day we size up situations and use past experience to make wise choices. There's no time for lengthy judicial procedings, we have common sense. But when an obviously bogus review shows up on the front page we are lost and clueless, time for a lengthy debate and an oblique look at every possible angle, yep, its still bogus.

There is a whole world of difference between looking at an iffy review and accusing an artist of collusion. With the former you have the choice of accepting it, deleting it or asking the reviewer for a revision - with the latter you need hard concrete proof. The one choice you don't have is to accuse the artist without proof.

Jörgemeister wrote: for being a full time artist Guy does seems to have a lot of free time to reading all his reviews, posting in forums and writing PM's.Just saying.

He's not. He said he's just semi-pro, having his weekends and nights for his music.

GuyM wrote: em·pir·i·cism [em-pir-uh-siz-uhm]   –noun 1. undue reliance upon experience, as in medicine; quackery.

Since I'm not a doctor, I was thinking more along the lines of

em·pir·i·cism  
(m-pîr-szm)
n.

I've said this before, in some dark room full of virgins here in PA forums.

Wouldnt be useful to have a system to rate reviews? a simple one, same as Amazon has the question "Was this review useful to you?" Y/N and then it displays "N persons have found this review helpful"

instead of helpful we could use "accurate".

And who knows even weight a review depending on the numbers of cotes it has.

Jörgemeister wrote: I've said this before, in some dark room full of virgins here in PA forums. Wouldnt be useful to have a system to rate reviews? a simple one, same as Amazon has the question "Was this review useful to you?" Y/N and then it displays "N persons have found this review helpful" instead of helpful we could use "accurate". And who knows even weight a review depending on the numbers of cotes it has.