Your opinion of the "new" reviews layout

I joined the site after the change, but I think I like it better this way than I would have the old way.  In most cases not only are the collabs better reviewers, but they are the reviewers who have reviewed a very large number of albums and havent just picked out their favorites or least favorites to voice their unusual opinion about an album.  Non-collaborators may not like the layout for compressing their reviews, but if they dont like it then they can write more and become one.  

progrules wrote:   By the way, when are we going to see reviews by you ? I'm really curious about them.

Some day. There are a couple of albums that I've been thinking about reviewing, but I feel more enigmatic without them. ;-)

Henry Plainview wrote: progrules wrote:   By the way, when are we going to see reviews by you ? I'm really curious about them. Some day. There are a couple of albums that I've been thinking about reviewing, but I feel more enigmatic without them. ;-)

Henry reviews....that should be, interesting.

And I guess I feel negatively, its just another example of admins using special treatment. Reviews should just be there, IMHO. But also, I really don't care about it really.
Besides, no one wants to read my reviews


Edited by JJLehto - November 06 2009 at 02:23

Little change: generally spoken (but not always), the collab reviews are better, although there are lots of good non-collab reviews. And the last 10 reviews are displayed in full length on the band's page, so a non-collab review may be displayed there for many a month if he chooses to review an album by a lesser known band. But I think it might be better if some more of therse reviews is shown on the album page.

mystic fred wrote: I am a little perturbed by having to scroll right down past all the adverts, ebay and amazon etc., to actuallly get to the reviews...

Agreed! Very annoying to say the least. I wish they were at the very bottom of the page as I think the vast majority of us would like to get to the albums and reviews straight off, without wending our way through a mindfield of ads for Ebay and the like!

I am in two minds about the reviews layout. Yes - I think collabs reviews should be prominently displayed but there are a lot of great reviews from guest reviewers, which I tend to overlook unless I happen upon them on the PA homepage. I think the layout should be revisted with guest reviewers given a little more prominence, similar to the old layout.

mystic fred wrote: I am a little perturbed by having to scroll right down past all the adverts, ebay and amazon etc., to actuallly get to the reviews...

Collabs are collabs because they've been recognised for knowing what they are talking about. Now I don't know about you guys, but when I'm reading a review I want to read one from a guy with a relevant opinion, not some douchebag advertising Nike trainers, or even worse, a troll.

jampa17 wrote: mystic fred wrote: I am a little perturbed by having to scroll right down past all the adverts, ebay and amazon etc., to actuallly get to the reviews...       Totally agree... and yes, we only write reviews for our own pleasure, because nobody will reach for the reviews on the side, and keep skipping the pages back to go and see another review... so I'm with those who want a change on the format... about true love in the other hand... it exists, surely, for all of us... but is difficult to recognize it and we're scared...!!!

stonebeard wrote: If you are not a Collaborator, there is no reason in the current system to put effort into a review of an album if not for your own satisfaction. Your opinion otherwise is nearly worthless.

Not true at all, I'll give you three
1.  because its fun
2.  to become a collaborator
3.  If you review albums that arent well known, then people will read your review

I think it's pretty terrible, and have often found non-collab reviews to be be better-reading and better-written than collab reviews. Sometimes I prefer them because they ain't so bloody long - lol (talk about the pot calling the kettle black as I commonly write long posts).

I didn't become a collab as a reviewer, yet I would get special treatment of placement and weighting (heck, there are some mostly raters-only whose ratings opinions I I trust more than reviewers simply because my tastes are closer) . It seems a bit unfair to me, and I don't think it benefits the visitors as much as it does the "staff" -- though many collabs have been dead-set against this favouritism from the beginning. And I think such representation can help give some people an over-inflated sense of worth/ ego, to be honest.  Reviews are mostly just opinions anyway....

 I also think it can be discouraging for non-staff (the counter argument that has been given is that it will encourage people to write better and more reviews so that they will be considered for Prog Reviewer status). It's also a carrot to encourage collabs to write more, but I think it's more decent to give everyone a fair showing. 

If someone's spamming, as has been mentioned, that will be usually be caught anyway when it's on the front page and is abusive, but if it weren't it might be harder to catch when it's pushed off to the side.

Incidentally, at progfreak.com there is a trusted reviewer rating (not that we could bring in quite the same system here) and being a collab is supposed to mean trusted anyway... 

Late edit (had a shower):  The other funny thing is that when you look on the album page it has the earliest collab (reviewer, collabs, SC, or admin) review first, but in the right truncated column it has the latest non-collab review first.  Well, I think that the early standards for reviews were much lower, so it's not uncommon for the most prominent reviews by collabs to be relatively poor, so if it's a quality issue, it often doesn't hold up -- especially if it an album that was added back in the early days of the site.  Early collab reviews are quite commonly not that good, but when one becomes a collab, every review one has written (even as a noob who may have poor writing skills, has not listened to the album much and is not yet that knowledgeable / has not hones one's craft) gets that special treatment.

I could find many examples of collab reviews that show limited understanding while non-caollabs (who may eventually become collabs themselves and then their reviews will get better treatment) show greater understanding about the album/ band/ the scene it belongs to....

Guess the ads get even more special treatment, however, so we're all at least second best to those (I use adblock).

The other thing regarding both placement and weighed ratings -- weighted ratings being a concern of mine -- is that there is no shared truth when it comes to an album's worth or even the same methodology for rating which lessens the treatment for me.  One collab pans an album and gives it a one while another praises it and gives it a five.  It's the same with non-collabs, even though, of course, it's more likely to find abuse with non-collab reviews (though there are many reliable non-collab reviewers who may be asked to become collabs at some time).  In the realm of musical opinion, or at least what I should look into, I put my trust in those that I know have similar tastes to mine (be they official reviewer or not -- I couldn't care less what someone's title is when it comes to such matters).


Edited by Logan - November 06 2009 at 14:05