Increase required content for home page publishing

I am not one who is big on wordiness. I like information that is pragmatic and to the point. That being said, I see a lot of junky 100 word reviews roll across the front page. I'm not saying that there are not some really good reviews in the 100-150 word range, but the chance for abuse decreases if there is more work involved. I have no problem with whatever someone wants to write as it appears on the album page. But the home page is the face of the site and should be a held to a higher standard. I wouldn't propose a front page review screening committee. That would leave reviews subjected to another persons qualitative criteria. Increase the front page requirement to 250 or 300 words.

This cannot have been the first suggestion of this sort.


Edited by Tapfret - December 21 2012 at 14:49

My home has a few requirements. I like having a toilet. It is important to have a toilet, maybe 2 or 3. They serve a purpose. I have a front yard. People that don't know me see my front yard and that is their first perception of what kind of person I am. Despite how important my toilet is, I do not put it in the front yard.

No so true

P.S. I am not a musician nor a reviewer btw  all I am is a friendly and happy moozik enthousiast.

Gerinski wrote: 100 is perhaps a bit short but length does not guarantee quality. Another idea: For Collaborators, the "title" (Prog Reviewer, Special Collaborator etc) is mentioned below the username. However for non-Collabs nothing is mentioned to give you some feel for what "level" that member is. I tend to think that poor reviews are usually by newbies or members who have reviewed very few albums, perhaps they just review some particular album to trash it or to praise it and nothing else. People who take reviewing seriously and have reviewed many albums tend to write better reviews. In the forum we can see the "level" of each user (Newbie, Groupie, Senior Member etc) and a ranking of Stars, this gives an idea of how committed the user is to the site and the forum. If a similar "user level profile" (seniority level + stars based on his/her number of reviews) was shown below the username in the review, it would give an idea how seriously that review can be taken or how reliable it is. It does not guarantee quality either, the first review by a Newbie can be excellent and the 500th review by a senior user can be crap, but it would help readers putting that review in some perspective. I think it has also been suggested to have a "rate this review" function by which readers could rate the quality of reviews, so reviewers would gradually get a ranking for "how good a reviewer they are" based on number of reviews + average rating of their reviews. Such a "reviewer rating by the readers" could also provide a useful "reliability factor" for reviews, and would reward the commitment and quality of the reviewers, I'm sure some reviewers would really get competitive in order to get the title of "best reviewer"

The limit used to be less. I'm not sure about exact number, but it wasn't counted in words, but in characters (which makes more sense to me by the way - English has a lot of short words - articles which counts as proper words in this system).

What was the limit, 200 characters ? 300 chars ?