Suggestion: Discuss reviews on review page

My question was not "do you think that 50 comments multipled by 600 reviews would be a bit too much", but "do you really think it's realistic that every single Close to the Edge-review would get 60 comments" I'd be surprised if people care enough to pull that off. (But I can't understand why it would pose a problem to anyone. Necessary? Depends on your aim. To protect and preserve? Perhaps not. To make a community growing and appealing? Then perhaps.)

Ricochet wrote: And we already established that the case of "an imbecile challenging well-crafted reviews" is a form of agressiveness, abuse.

Did we? To me, that's democracy (change the word "reviews" to "regime"). Now, if he/she was attacking you, and not challenging your review, then I'd agree we were talking about agressiveness and abuse. But we shouldn't restrict challenges out of fear of attacks, neither in society nor in small communities [/philosophy mode].

Ricochet wrote: I'm still talking about the fact that the attention is drawn from the album towards the review that was written and/or towards how that person wrote the review. The ideal situation is when both the reviewer and the commenter keep focusing on the album, sharing ideas, infos, expressing opinions. But this kind of sharing already happens on the forum, in every appreciation thread, as well as in various polls and threads, opened to discuss albums, music etc.

I don't know if the "fact" you're talking about is a concern or a conclusion, but I suspect the latter. And then I disagree with you, because I believe that the discussions will take place because of opinions about the album. This is not a zero-sum game, why should it be? And because I believe the benefits to way outweigh whatever problems there might be with abuse. But none of us can prove our predictions, because nothing has bee tried.

Furthermore, I maintain my case that the Forum has a high threshold for people to enter. And that it significantly more work lurking into a forum, looking through all the lounges, finding the appropriate thread, being yelled at by experienced forum participants for posting in the wrong thread, etc, etc, than it is to simply post your thoughts and reactions underneath the review.

Ricochet wrote: (And that there's a good chance more than half of the comments to be in this style) <snip> Those valuable things will be offered by 1 out of 10 people. Is this a good profit?

Hm. I'm tempted to ask you where you get these numbers. As far as I know, no trial or experiment has been carried out. I could easily post the opposite numbers with just as little evidence to back it up...

Raff wrote: Just for the record: I don't particularly like being called 'dystopian'.

Sorry, my comment was more aimed at MrProgFreak, whose comment was dystopian no matter how you view it 

 

Desoc wrote: Ricochet wrote: "The reviews are not made in a vacuum and should not be kept in a vacuum", indeed, but they're still the most direct way to focus on an album - and to make it the important subject of all. Blog-like interaction usually works ideally on the same thing - a subject initially discussed by someone, but ultimately discussed by all who replied. In this case, it's the reviewer who stands (I'm almost tempted to say trialed) regarded by the commenters. So what are we down to? You not being fond of the idea of getting challenged by an imbecile on your well-crafted reviews?

I wasn't talking about myself in any of the comments I made.
And we already established that the case of "an imbecile challenging well-crafted reviews" is a form of agressiveness, abuse. (And that there's a good chance more than half of the comments to be in this style).

I'm still talking about the fact that the attention is drawn from the album towards the review that was written and/or towards how that person wrote the review. The ideal situation is when both the reviewer and the commenter keep focusing on the album, sharing ideas, infos, expressing opinions. But this kind of sharing already happens on the forum, in every appreciation thread, as well as in various polls and threads, opened to discuss albums, music etc. 

Desoc wrote: Ricochet wrote: Further on, like Windhawk implied, there are arguments and arguments. Personally, I'm not enchanted by the "nice writing" short-like positive comments as much as I hate to predict thousand of "you suck" nasty comments. And replies such as " X is my favorite rather than this one" are of almost no worth. I wish moreover for these comments' utility to consist out of valuable corrections, extra info offered or...intrinsic commenting into the details with which the original reviewer approched the subject. That could work, yet it just won't happen in everybody's case. The profit of this function will, thus, be slimmer than we'd hope.   But if there's indeed a profit, why not try?   After all, you don't have to read all the short replies that you don't fancy? Why not simply enjoy the valuable corrections and extra info offered or intrinsic commenting into details that we apparently agree will be offered, and ignore the fill?    ^ This is exactly what creates content. And ideas, and music, when it comes down to it.

[/QUOTE]

Those valuable things will be offered by 1 out of 10 people. Is this a good profit?