Reviews reporting thread

^I'm going out on a limb and bet the person that liked it is the person who wrote the review with the same rating within 3 minutes of this one.

This review includes an editorial hypothesizing the motivations of collaborator reviews. It is at very least irrelevant to an album review. It is most likely a violation of section 4 and 5 of the reviewing policy.

^ Understood. I'll try to turn on the non-existent charm to offer some friendly advice (constructive criticism/ share concerns) when I get the chance. I am terrible at reviews writing, but it's often easy to see where others could be improved. Simple changes.

We have discussed his reviews. Don't see manipulation, dealt with lots involving Greco Bastian, and while the reviews would benefit from plenty of improvement, don't think they require action for abuse. I might well try to contact him to advise, but I don't see that a warning is needed/ warranted.

^If nothing else it's abuse to simple arithmetic. The individual song scores get no less than 65% on the presented 10 point scale, but the overall star score is 2, or 40%. That's some artistic math.

wiz_d_kidd wrote: lazland wrote: Logan wrote: To me that black midi Cavalcade review appears permissible. It is indeed, but I have said before that whilst the review might well fall within acceptable boundaries set by the site rules, it is not a review which is going to add to PA’s reputation in the music world. Indeed, I would venture that it will decrease it ever so slightly further. I know none of you will take a blind bit of notice of this, but I will say it anyway. I feel it is time for a major overhaul of the way the reviews are done on PA, and that should include an end to the “Wild West” of anybody and everybody being able to publish reviews. There must be some form of quality control in that only trusted reviewers are able to publish without moderation and everybody else undergoes some form of probation where their work is moderated before publication and then allowed to become trusted. I don't find your review of King Crimson's Construkction of Light (http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=201247) to be any different than the Cavalcade review everyone is ranting about.

Edited by Atavachron - December 30 2022 at 17:13

lazland wrote: Logan wrote: To me that black midi Cavalcade review appears permissible. It is indeed, but I have said before that whilst the review might well fall within acceptable boundaries set by the site rules, it is not a review which is going to add to PA’s reputation in the music world. Indeed, I would venture that it will decrease it ever so slightly further. I know none of you will take a blind bit of notice of this, but I will say it anyway. I feel it is time for a major overhaul of the way the reviews are done on PA, and that should include an end to the “Wild West” of anybody and everybody being able to publish reviews. There must be some form of quality control in that only trusted reviewers are able to publish without moderation and everybody else undergoes some form of probation where their work is moderated before publication and then allowed to become trusted.

On your first point, that's exactly the problem I had with it. Sure, it accomplishes the bare minimum of album description, but I know way more now about the author's hate of The Mars Volta than anything relevant about the album. As you say, this is not a value added review and certainly should not be on the front page or the site's Facebook page to showcase what is offered by the site.

To your second point, I agree, but I am also aware of the added volunteer work that would require and probably a software overhaul that I really don't see happening.

siLLy puPPy wrote: All you have to do is scroll down to the bottom to get the latest review on any album. Easy enough me thinks :)

True enough, but the site defaults back and new users will always see the newest first. And of course, you only get one first impression.

Edited by Tapfret - December 30 2022 at 14:08

^ Depends--  true for the Album page, but not for the Artist page which lists newest reviews first.  Plus there are some key early reviews by founders, SCs, etc

lazland wrote: projeKct wrote: ^ I don't want to be mean and/or stupid, but what's wrong with this review? Nothing, he just doesn’t rate it very highly.