Thumbs up or down on album reviews

yeah. I'll take that cue to say my last two cents and leave it for others to chime in.

...or do anything with the read elephant in the room as to the source of 'discredit' this site has in the larger world.

My first experience at Nearfest I'll always remember when I was talking to someone and mentioned the site, and it got laughed at.  It wasn't because of the reviews. This site does not have a good rep out 'there'. The reviews and the legions of fanboys that we have endured here are a part of it,  from what I've heard from people. It is not the salient reason why.  Thumbs up or down will do nothing.. unless you go fascist on the forum itself.  It would likley do nothing but discourage people from reviewing.. some out of disgust for the whole notion of being subject to being reviewed themselves.. some simply not having enough confidence in their abilities to put out a review to only see it trashed because they might offend either fanboys or the 'review police' who take it upon themselves to judge good reviews.. from bad.

A bad idea... and one that does nothing to fix a 'problem' that is part of the overall charm and appeal of the site.  Good reviews have a thread specifically made for pointing them out.. continued reviewing excellence gets you promoted...  not so good reviewers remain in the wasteland of nameless/faceless Joe 6-pack reviewers whose reviews are quickly forgotten after they are bumped from the main page.

it is cutting off the head of the charm of this place, a place for everyone to have their say, to cure a slight headache

peace out!!


Edited by micky - January 25 2015 at 07:51

rogerthat wrote: Vetting album reviews is in principle a good idea.  Metal archives used to do pre submission vetting.  Even reasonably well written and coherent reviews would get rejected if they were piling onto a mountain of reviews for a well known album without any original insight to offer.  Sort of, hard luck but you don't get to review DSOTM just because you would like to.  I think this system did force reviewers to up their game.  The question is, who will put their hands up for review moderation?  MA had enough moderators to look after band as well as review submissions (which were both in greater numbers than in PA).

Would vetting a new member's first review be sufficient? (I'm not even sure if we have the manpower to handle that....)

Raff wrote: Angelo wrote: Missed that indeed, phone screens are small... I see your point there, but it only works that way only partly. There are many good reviews indeed, but most of them are on the 'major' bands and albums. Less reviewed bands and albums are easily crushed by getting destructive reviews (well disguised sometimes) or by getting the reputation of being a 'fan boy band/album'.  With all the effort spend on including new bands over the past 5 years, I don't think it is in PA's best interest to let that continue, with the sole protection of 'some guidelines'. Besides that, you seem to be completely ignoring two parts of what I'm trying to get across. First, encouraging reviewers has been part of PA for the reason that it helps people find good information on the music presented by the bands (the first goal of the site is publishing that information!). That works, but it doesn't help new visitors judge the quality or validity of what is written - a thumb up/down or score makes that easier. Second, feedback hidden deep down in a forum thread is not exactly helpful to a reviewer, given that it tends to go unnoticed. And for the heck of it, I know the two of you have strong opinions, and you are entitled to those, but it would be great to hear some others here as well... Where is everyone on this freakish, dreary cold Sunday afternoon? To answer your question, generally this is the time of day when the forum gets the least traffic - both on weekdays and weekends. Anyway, I am off to do some housework now, so this is the last you'll hear from me for a while. Back to the issue at hand, I see your point, and absolutely agree about bad reviews being detrimental for lesser-known bands. However, I don't think that having a thumbs up/down button will encourage people to review the hundreds of albums (some of them excellent) that currently have no reviews whatsoever.

I'm sure finding volunteers for being a jack-booted force of setting and enforcing 'reviewing standards' would be no problem. That would be a hoot, and I'd probably volunteer for it.   

oh by the way... forget all the less than sexy stuff that needs help around here like all the incomplete bios, unreviewed albums, bands that might or might not be added.

Some of us invested YEARS into that hard work, and still there remains years of work to bring up to snuff the real importance of the site.  What is really important and needing the sites real attention. Not pulling collabs to be review judge and juries but work on the less than glamorous but much more vital things.

Not reviews, but the database.

I gotta say, I'd rather see the collabs having a bit of spare time to do a review or two. The large bulk of the people working in the teams probably do so because they started out as reviewers. I love it when they find time for a little write-up - something that happened far more frequently back when I started out using this site, but recently with the maelstrom of band suggestions has become an increasingly rare thing.

Mjeaah maybe so but implementing more rules on how to review properly might just work counter productively. Knowing you, Iain, if you were told what to review you'd probably go in the complete opposite direction.

For a start, at least the website could stop accepting reviews for albums with more than a certain threshold of reviews.  For eg, CTTE has 489 reviews.  What purpose do fresh reviews for this album serve at this point? I speak as one who has reviewed several of the classics.  Yeah, I gamed the system.  But I don't think it is a particularly good one if we want to have reviews of a certain quality.  

rogerthat wrote: For a start, at least the website could stop accepting reviews for albums with more than a certain threshold of reviews.  For eg, CTTE has 489 reviews.  What purpose do fresh reviews for this album serve at this point? I speak as one who has reviewed several of the classics.  Yeah, I gamed the system.  But I don't think it is a particularly good one if we want to have reviews of a certain quality.

When I joined the site, I knew very little (if anything) about "modern" prog, while I was reasonably knowledgeable about the classics - and this is where I started from, almost 10 years ago. However, things have changed now, and people can listen to albums on Bandcamp or Progstreaming, and then write a review if they feel like it. A lot of great music is out there at everyone's disposal - legally and for free - but the word needs to be spread in some way. This is why I would endorse putting a cap on reviews of overexposed albums. Adding albums to the database, and then letting them sink into oblivion for lack of reviews - while the classics buckle under the sheer weight of the words written about them - is not what this site should be about.

as a note on the 'times have changed' note.. again.. banging hard on this notion that less than stellar reviews are detrimental to the site.

it is a new world out there...  many reviewers simply don't review for this site anymore.  Blogs and dedicated review sites have come and surpassed sites like this as prime outlets for that kind of information.  To beat a dead horse.. because it is what I love doing.. reviews are not the problem the site faces.  It is recruiting talent and motivated people to do the dirty work for the site. The database.


The aspect in which this site still has, and always has had, the MOST value in the larger prog world. Reason 1 I am so against this. If the site wants to be proactive.. do so in a way it is needed. Don't waste time with silly notions like this.. do so in a way that really is needed.

my two cents as always


Edited by micky - January 25 2015 at 09:09