Major Upgrade to the Forum Engine

my ranking  lost in the woods ...

Well I've gotten back on the horse after a few months layoff...some backhanded compliments for whipping boy Toby Driver on the front page.

 

ExittheLemming wrote:   You brandish your tuned pitchforks upon the music listed on this site by providing detailed and informative reviews with substance that will make PA the most complete and powerful progressive rock resource. Yes, it was deliberate as the Top 100 Reviewers list was felt to contribute towards the steady decline in the standard of reviews being submitted for some considerable time. After all, the wrong type of competitive spirit engenders short cuts being taken and given the choice between good and hard work, we will always opt for the former. Like I said earlier in this thread, the information some of you seek i.e. a league table, is available on the collaborators page. A slew of flimsy reviews that tell you next to nothing about the subject matter is no better than zero reviews and strips the site of it's hard won credibility. We have a lot of brilliant reviewers on PA (including yourself) who will continue to make this site the 'first choice stop' for any inquisitive visitor.

Excellent news. I don't mind. We are now awaiting yours and the powers that is version and definiton of "good" and "bad" in the context of PA. Please post them and do it right now. 

Remember: A cow is a cow in someones eyes and a disfigured sheep in someone else's eyes again. What is the right definition of a cow ?

Remember to think when you think. That will make your thoughts a lot more considered. 

So, what is "good" and what is "bad" ? Or is no reviews at all "good" ? Is a hospital without any patients a better run hospital than a hospital with patients ? 

Please report back with your findings and definitions within hours (which should be no problems for you since you must have known what you wrote). This is a " 'first choice stop' for any inquisitive visitor " and a centre for excellense. Not a place for cheap, nasty accusations. Like the ones yours may be mistaken for.

.......but the removal of the Top 100 reviewers is warmly supported by me. 

 

 

Edited by toroddfuglesteg - February 09 2012 at 16:30

Windhawk wrote: I have taken it for granted that the Lemming and admin team know their Hanslick from start to finish, and easily can outline the merits of a good review versus a not good review at the blink of an eye ;-)

Fantastic. I am so happy to discover a place like PA who has solved the 100 000 years old quandrum in finding the difference between good and bad in abstract matters like opinions.

Edited by toroddfuglesteg - February 09 2012 at 16:36

Oh well. There has been a call for words of wisdom from the learned sages. It'll be interesting to see if they will come down from their mountain and share their glorious knowledge with this small horde of uncouth, common barbarians.

To be a bit more serious: Why do the site have collabs if they aren't consulted in matters which directly or indirectly affects their actions? Or at a base minimum informed?

I can see a number of good reasons for why that list of top quantity reviewers was removed, that it deterred new reviewers due to the silly amounts of reviews written by the people on that list as of now one of the topmost. But as it was also a tool and resource for those with a less keen involvement in the site as such and at least to some extent an inspiration or handy tool for the collabs on that list, removing it does have negative side effects. And sugarcoating that decision is a move that should have been thought of beforehand.

Whatever reasonings that were made behind closed doors, and however sound they may have been, someone should have realized that you don't make people happy by punching them in their face, even if the punch is a light and delicate one. The action becomes more important than the effect itself in such instances.

In the long run not an important issue, probably not in the short run either. The handling of it a matter of more  concern than the action itself in my opinion.

What I care about is the signals being sent out in an open to everyone forum  and the lack of any considerations, both intellectual and human considerations taken here. Attacking collabs and any other reviewers (including those who post reviews in good faith) without any good reasonings than "that is my/ours opinions = it is the objective truth" is demeaning ProgArchives into something much nastier than I signed up to when I joined here. It is certainly not making PA into a quality website.

Again: Think. 

I have said my piece (and edited it eight times). Goodnight and good mental health. 

Edited by toroddfuglesteg - February 09 2012 at 18:06

This is all missing the point just a little. It is not the Collabs and Prog Reviewers who we are concerned about as much as the non-collabs who are trying to emulate them. The "league table" presents a false picture of what being a collaborator is all about - it's not about producing 100s and 1000s of reviews, but of producing good quality reviews. All PRs were chosen because of the quality of what they wrote, not the quantity - which is why there are people out there who have written more than the recommended 30 reviews who were not promoted to PR status.

Dean wrote: This is all missing the point just a little. It is not the Collabs and Prog Reviewers who we are concerned about as much as the non-collabs who are trying to emulate them. The "league table" presents a false picture of what being a collaborator is all about - it's not about producing 100s and 1000s of reviews, but of producing good quality reviews. All PRs were chosen because of the quality of what they wrote, not the quantity - which is why there are people out there who have written more than the recommended 30 reviews who were not promoted to PR status.   Newer members looking at the league table see a target to aim at (100s of reviews), not a goal to be achieved (accurate reviewing).   Anyone who has seen, or complained about, people flooding the front-page with multiple brief, poorly written reviews that rapidly push the longer, well considered and well written reviews off the page should see what we've done here as not quite the villainous "kick in the face" that some have mistaken it for.

I don't see this as a villainous move at all, but can we be sure that these "review mavericks" just want their names on the chart (even if they can't get theirs on there without quality reviews per the review guidelines), or is their motive something else?  Perhaps they are legitimately opinionated but do a poor job expressing their views.

I, like Jim, did enjoy seeing others move along (and I just hit #39! ), and it was a handy way to go right to some of my favorite reviewers' pages to read what they've written. 

Dean wrote: This is all missing the point just a little. It is not the Collabs and Prog Reviewers who we are concerned about as much as the non-collabs who are trying to emulate them. The "league table" presents a false picture of what being a collaborator is all about - it's not about producing 100s and 1000s of reviews, but of producing good quality reviews. All PRs were chosen because of the quality of what they wrote, not the quantity - which is why there are people out there who have written more than the recommended 30 reviews who were not promoted to PR status.   Newer members looking at the league table see a target to aim at (100s of reviews), not a goal to be achieved (accurate reviewing).   Anyone who has seen, or complained about, people flooding the front-page with multiple brief, poorly written reviews that rapidly push the longer, well considered and well written reviews off the page should see what we've done here as not quite the villainous "kick in the face" that some have mistaken it for.

There is an easy fix to this.

Whatever your highly subjective views determine is good reviews is given the value 0 and is getting kept on the frontpage for 12, 24, 36, 72 hours or how long it takes.

 Whatever your highly subjective views determine is bad reviews is given the value 2 and falls of the frontpage after 15 minutes or shorter. 

Why has this not been done years ago if this was such a problem for PA ? 

Another thing: You believe those of who reviews does it for being high on the list. That is not  true. Some of us review for the fun of it or any other reasons. The list does not mean anything to me and surely; for a lot of others too. Don't assume anything and don't think you know the reasons why people are reviewing. 

Edited by toroddfuglesteg - February 09 2012 at 19:50