Suggested rules for certain types of threads
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=96622
Printed Date: December 02 2024 at 08:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Suggested rules for certain types of threads
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Subject: Suggested rules for certain types of threads
Date Posted: January 08 2014 at 04:35
|
Has anyone ever considered a rule that posts in "what are you listening to right now"/top 10 list/recommendation threads etc. must have some in-depth description at least, preferably some kind of analysis, and not just mentions? I generally don't find posts of that variety without some kind of detailed explanation useful for the stated purpose of the threads, because I don't know why specific artists and records are being brought up. The Metal-Archives forum, where I posted from 2006-2008, has http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23778" rel="nofollow - a strict set of rules for how to make and reply to recommendation threads which I consider a very good idea because it resulted in the rec threads for the most part being more useful than the ones here on PA. (one of the very few advantages MA has over this forum) ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Replies:
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 08 2014 at 05:14
|
...and the Bandcamp thread. Or even just the Bandcamp thread. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: January 08 2014 at 06:07
|
I also wouldn't mind ProgArchives having as strict review guidelines as Metal-Archives, where the reviews are on average much longer and more in-depth than here. Say what you want about M-A's uptightness when it comes to things like forum moderation and inclusion of artists with an ambiguous genre (or lack thereof), but there are some departments where it isn't a bad thing.
------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: irrelevant
Date Posted: January 09 2014 at 10:45
|
^ Some people prefer not to do it or don't see the point in over-elaboration. Not saying that going into a lot of detail is a bad thing, but you know what I mean.
------------- https://gabebuller.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - New album! http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385 |
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: January 09 2014 at 11:20
|
This isn't Encyclopaedia Mettalum,and I don't see anything wrong with the threads you have such a hard on for,they're harmless. If I post that I am listening to a certain album I shouldn't have to write a mini review for it.If what I listened to interests somebody they can look it up. -------------  |
Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: January 09 2014 at 11:24
|
Plus some people don't have the knack for writing or describing music. Some people will put a blurb next to recommendations for a description or note but I think forcing reviews upon recommendation threads where they have been harmless and successful in the past.
I don't think this means flooding with videos or making 10000 threads though. ------------- Crushed like a rose in the riverflow. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 07:14
How likely are they to register on a forum like this, though?
I'm not requesting mini-reviews, just that namedrops are accompanied by a bit of musical description. If not, I usually have a hard time finding out exactly how a mentioned artist or record I'm not familiar with is relevant to the discussion if I don't already know the poster's taste in music before. (which is far from a given!) ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Horizons wrote:Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 07:45
|
It would be nice if it said : Artist - Album.
(im able to wiki from there)
But just a cover with no name or anything  ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 08:43
|
I've never been a fan of rules to be perfectly honest with you. I believe in (almost) self regulated fora that rely on the individual posters to act in a manner that purports respect and genuine interest in being here. Sometimes people are lazy (myself included) and post the occasional cover art in the listening thread, other times you get long fruitful conversations in there (I just had one the other day with my down under friend Gabe (irrelevant)). It goes back and forth, and speaking wholly for myself: I find it rather heart-warming to see Febus mentioned every time people post in there. He died a little while back, but most people who ever had the chance to talk to him on here, still remembers him very lovingly. He loved the listening thread, which is why I've always thought of it as a small ode to him on PAs behalf. As for suggestions without any follow up writing, where people just spit out arbitrary acts, well we can all agree just how quickly that gets annoying. It works if it's between people who know each other really well. If John (Mellotron Storm), for instance, recommends me Paula Abdul, I'd check her out based solely on that. I do however think that folks with a talent for the English lingo - hell, just people who can sling a few sentences together - have an obligation to share their thoughts on whatever music the're into/engage in discussions where they have something to say (and if they feel like it)/anything really so as we can get some sparks going, and as long as folks come here for the music and act accordingly, it's all good to me. (I also believe PA is a place people can come to chat about all sorts of things, providing it's done in the right sections. Here I was referring to the musical side of PA.)
------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 10:35
Your quest for review improvement is laudable. However, even a casual glance over the recent history of this site will tell you that such intent will be fought tooth and nail by the 'ladder climbers' in our midst who value quantity over quality as some sort of perceived cognizance of 'reward' for their efforts from PA. (Why do we continue to risk endorsing the authors of 500 crap reviews as being more representative of the avowed aim of the site than the authors of 20 good reviews? - go figure but I guess that's my inference of how the league table is perceived by visitors) In an attempt to raise the standard of written reviews, Max once removed the 'most prolific reviewers' league table from the front page and this was met by such hostility from some of the membership that they created a dedicated Facebook page to present their list of demands and grievances to the PA Admins for such treachery. Cut to the chase, this is an amateur site where the only censorship of reviews is that of legibility, profanity or slander etc so expecting the quality to improve by implementing additional guidelines is probably bound to be met with the sort of shrill indifference I alluded to above. The 'subjectivity' argument that is always trotted out re the who are you to say what is good c/f crap? etc is rendered spurious when said reviews routinely only just fulfill the minimum requirement of 100 words etc. I'd be in favour of raising the minimum criteria to 200 words for a written review but would concede that this could be deemed a disincentive to review and yes, I just happen to be a long winded gas bag. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 14:34
|
I'm not quite so certain that'd be the result. M-A has a rule where the members get "points" for their contributions that can be seen on their profiles, depending on how much they've modified. The crucial factor is that the amount of points given for an approved review varies on a scale from 1 to 8 depending on how much the approving moderator likes the review in question. From my memories of M-A, that actually results in a lot of cooperation between reviewers to improve by sharing advice on the forum as well as a bit of friendly competition in quality as well as quantity. The review quality I think can be measured somewhat objectively, in things like analysis of lyrics and how they fit into the overarching concept of the music, how much music theory is used in the description of the composition and performance or a record's place in the genre's history. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 15:19
|
I think the Spirit of Rock site (and others) adopt a similar
points system. The problem here on PA is that every single review
submitted would have to be rated by the admins and I'm almost certain they
would refuse to take on such a task.I ain't an admin but if they feel differently I'm sure they will chime in accordingly....? -------------
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 15:23
|
Fair enough.
------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 07:27
You didn't have to change your post Iain, you were spot on
I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable having to rate reviews, hell I don't even like rating albums I review myself. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Andy Webb
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 12:21
|
When we get the new version of the forum (hopefully in the next few months), each post will have the option to "thank" the member, so this could be seen as "points." While I think it would be good to recommend members to post little blurbs about albums in the listening thread, I don't think it should be mandated. Members who post blurbs can be "thanked" by members who appreciate the blurbs, and for those who find value in the thanks, this could promote them to write more blurbs. In terms of reviews on the actual site, it's futile to have to rate every single one. We have pretty heavy review traffic, and people have their favorite reviewers who they pay attention to. I like to read the reviews on the front page, and even if their terse, I can usually get something out of them. I feel like having to rate reviews would turn out to be a double edged sword; it would prompt members to write better reviews, but it would also push some members away from reviewing who might have just started and aren't fully into their 'style.' (If you're feeling adventurous, read one of my first few reviews and then read one of my recent ones - you'll see what a few years of style maturation can do).
------------- http://ow.ly/8ymqg" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 12:50
| I suggest the improvement of reviews be in the hands of the members. The advantage of a forum is that it gives us a good platform to discuss these kinds of things and improve that way rather than enforcing rules. How about starting with a "Review Discussion, Advice, Tips" thread for members to discuss reviewing and whatnot? |
Posted By: Andy Webb
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 14:27
^This exists. 
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28344" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28344 ------------- http://ow.ly/8ymqg" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 14:55
 |
Posted By: Andy Webb
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 15:26
|
It can get heated.
Usually it has some nice topics of discussion though. ------------- http://ow.ly/8ymqg" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: The Bearded Bard
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 15:53
-------------  
|
Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 19:47
------------- -- Frank Swarbrick Belief is not Truth. |
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 21:25
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 03:42
 I don't write reviews because I don't want to, there are a few reasons why I don't want to, but they all boil down to the same thing - I don't want to. However having posted the album cover image you've found on the interweb, adding a few words about the album you're currently listening to isn't writing an entry for a musicological encyclopaedia or aiming to be the next Christgau. The "What are you listening to" threads are like conversations, the people who use them regularly are sharing the experience to some extent so there is an unwritten communication going on that casual readers will not pick up on so words are often deemed unnecessary. Personally, because of that I find them to be a little cliquey (not really but there isn't a better word) - sometimes it's like trying to join a private conversation and being ignored. Recommendation threads are different thing all together - if you're recommending an album and cannot be bothered to describe it then how can that possibly encourage people to listen?
------------- What? |
Posted By: The Bearded Bard
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 05:50
If it was a requirement for posting in the "What Are You Listening To Right Now?"-thread that you had to write a description of the music you're listening to, however short, I wouldn't post there half as much as I do, perhaps not at all. I just don't feel comfortable writing about something I feel I don't have enough knowledge of. Plus, writing in a language that is not my own, and that I'm not 100% comfortable with, makes it even harder. -------------
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 05:57
------------- 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 06:09
You've missed my point I think, but never mind. I see from the one review you have written that you are like me - you can write reviews (and a good one at that, perfectionist or not), but you chose not to. I'm not arguing for the proposition here, (I think it unnecessary, as are most "rules"), I'm just pointing out that no one is expecting a musicological description or a full-blown review - a simple "oh, this is good, some really cool guitar here" or "hmm, this sounds like early Sabbath" would be more informative than nothing at all. ------------- What? |
Posted By: The Bearded Bard
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 07:25
No, Dean, I think I see your point, and I mostly agree. I'm just saying that writing about music doesn't come as easy for everyone, though I understand it can get easier with practice.
It's not that I choose not to, I don't feel confident enough to, yet. I plan on writing some more though. Hopefully my confident level will rise as I get more reviews under my belt. -------------
|
Posted By: poeghost
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 10:29
|
I hope you do write more, Bearded Bard. You write well. I enjoyed your review of Jethro Tull's Christmas album. I've been wondering what that one was like. I like to write, but a little shy about it myself. Sometimes I feel I can't describe things as well as some of the others here can. I will keep at it because it can be fun and gives me a chance to listen to music more focused rather than in the background when working on things. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 10:43
|
I think the main rule to reviewing is that it should be fun. It should be something people do out of their own will - and because they feel like it and have something to say (hopefully interesting). It's so obvious when folks are doing it for sports ie the quantity factor or simply hyping x act for then never to reappear.
I'd like to think we can embrace all sorts of reviewing styles, short and long, analytical, funny, crude and so on, but it's also important to keep in mind that all reviewers start somewhere. To give people the benefit of a doubt before passing judgement, and see if things don't pick up or otherwise contact the person yourself instead of bitching about it in a thread that a lot of these writers never get to see. It's a two-way street. We can't expect to raise the bar, if we're not actively endorsing the reviewers to partake in such an endeavour.
------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 15:49
Although Andy Webb has highlighted there is a Reviews Discussion Thread where members can debate the merits or otherwise of submitted reviews, I think it worthwhile to reiterate that the current state of affairs already places any monitoring of reviews entirely in the hands of PA members i.e. those reviews that are considered to contravene the review guidelines can be highlighted in the Review Reporting Thread (which is also accessible to non collaborators) So in effect we 'police' our own site but without any formal procedure set in place to bring this about. This seems to work quite well but it has always concerned me slightly that we could be deemed a bit complacent in this area i.e.without the continued goodwill and vigilance exercised by those who frequent such threads, we would be guilty of hosting considerably more reviews viewable by visitors that cast the site in a very unflattering light. If it ain't broke don't fix it etc but would this become a problem if, for whatever reason, members stopped voluntarily reporting dubious reviews? Do we need the contingency of a monitor to monitor the monitors? I guess that any proposed rule changes considered from this discussion will inevitably undermine PA's most attractive feature: the ease with which the members can submit reviews (on some other Prog sites you have to jump through interminable administrative hoops to get anything published and that can takes several months) I certainly don't wish to make it harder for members to review but if we are serious about improving the quality of written work, the status quo will certainly never deliver our avowed aims. -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 21:01
|
^ Well put. The pangs of liberal policy. But better, I believe, than a hoop-jumping one which would remove, as you point out, one of the site's best features: the open community atmosphere. |
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 21:30
| Indeed. I suppose any effort to improve reviews will require some kind of pressure, even if that's the pressure put on a person to improve when another writes a good review. |
Posted By: The Bearded Bard
Date Posted: January 13 2014 at 14:24
-------------
|