Affinity for Reviewers

Well, in the end the powers that be may make all the decisions of what is valued or not, but I still have freedom of choice of what reviews I choose to read. I was mwerely trying to explain WHY...

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Greg W wrote:     Then let me explain by referring you to a band called Acuity. There are approximately 3 reviewers on this cd. The total would come out to 8 stars divided by 3 reviewers, which should come out to 2.66, however it shows 1.79. Why is that? Could it be that the elitist Collaborators have decided their reviews mean more than us commoners. It would seem that way to me.   The elitist collaborators decide NOTHING, this options are taken by the owners and administrators team, they are who decide who is a collaborator and who's not and what policy the site is going to follow.  ( I used the term generically. Of course I am referring to the admins as well.   Then I thought, well maybe they don't count those reviews done by people who only rate it without an essay. So, I did the math again and it comes up 2.5 stars, and yet it says 1.79. So how much importance have the collabs given themselves? Is it 2 times the amount. No, that works out to be 2 stars. Actually it seems to be 3 times the amount or very close to it. That kind of honesty? No thanks, I'll read the Guest reveiws, thank you very much.   The Collaborators have proven to be reliable and most important, they are responsible for what they write, if a Collaborator writes crap, the Adms will find him/her while a guest reviewer is not easy to find always. ( If it is a crap review, just delete it. Don't worry about chasing them down)   Collabotarators (mostof them) use their real names besides the nick, so that is more responsability and the site knows who they are, while a guest reviewer can change nick 25 times and rate an album 25 times, something that has happened already. ( I fail to see the point here. Is that supposed to reflect honesty? Once again, it doesn't matter. If the review is crap,just delete.)   But again Collaborators are not giving more importance to them, we have no decision on the policy of the site, ( Either way, someone is resonsible for it, collabs or not, I don't find it fair)   Read the Prog Reviews reporting thread and you will find more than 90% of the reviews deleted are from guest reviewers, very rarely a Collaborator writes a review that has to be checked. ( Yes, but the ones that remain have been deemed legitimate and therefore don't deserve to have their reviews lessened in value)   Collaborators have written many reviews before being called to work for the site (Free work BTW), so there are reasons to trust more in most of them. (So they have the time, and people such as myself do not. Some collabs have very narrow tastes and rank many such stuff that is good as posh, just because they are incapable of expanding their horizons or are  unable to get into certain genres. I, myself cannot get into KrautRock and if I review them, I would have to give them 2 stars or less...would that be fair?...no. SO I would never rate any Krautrock as I am unfit to do so as I just don't get it. So, as far as trusting one  group of people over another, I disagree as tastes vary and I think Collabs would be more apt to give bad reviews on music that doesn't suit their tastes over others. Or , I should say, those reviews are likely to stay inside here because they were well written.)   Iván

stonebeard wrote: The point is that all those who have become prog reviewers have proven that they are generally reliable reviewers with good composition skills. Since it would be much meaner to simply delete all the ratings without reviews, which gives non-English speaking members a chance to at least weigh in a little on reviews, a system of weights must be implemented. Now, the line between the validity of a guest reviewer's opinion and collabs is blurry, but any gues reviewer with a sufficient amount of high-quality reviews can become a collab. Collabs do not necessarily have better opinions, but they have been proven reliable, or at least more so than a one-off review from an unknown reviewer, which may still be valid.

Moogtron III wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Moogtron III wrote: Most of the times I check out Sean Trane's reviews. Even if I don't always agree, I always value his opinion very highly. I also like Easy Livin's reviews a lot. And as it comes to Italian prog, I bought almost any Italian prog record that I own because of Erik Neuteboom's reviews, as well as some others.   I like Greenback's reviews as well.   Well, they're my faves.   Marcel, if you keep this up, I'll be forced to move to Antwerp, becaiuse my neck is growing in size   I understand, I have that affect on necks  .

The point is that all those who have become prog reviewers have proven that they are generally reliable reviewers with good composition skills. Since it would be much meaner to simply delete all the ratings without reviews, which gives non-English speaking members a chance to at least weigh in a little on reviews, a system of weights must be implemented. Now, the line between the validity of a guest reviewer's opinion and collabs is blurry, but any gues reviewer with a sufficient amount of high-quality reviews can become a collab. Collabs do not necessarily have better opinions, but they have been proven reliable, or at least more so than a one-off review from an unknown reviewer, which may still be valid.

I hear you, though I think it's pompous self-importance more than it is a lack of honesty

In addition, I must add Febus to the list of reviewers I feel an affinity with; I agree with him absolutely on the aforementioned Soft Machine albums. He's just reviewed their fourth album and we're on the same page; I gave it 3 stars but I was rather generous. Febus gave it 2. IMHO, that album was a massive step back for the band.

Moogtron III wrote: Most of the times I check out Sean Trane's reviews. Even if I don't always agree, I always value his opinion very highly. I also like Easy Livin's reviews a lot. And as it comes to Italian prog, I bought almost any Italian prog record that I own because of Erik Neuteboom's reviews, as well as some others.   I like Greenback's reviews as well.   Well, they're my faves.

sircosick wrote: I believe that no one can never be in affinity with my thoughs, but the closest reviewer would be Sean Trane. From the albums we've heard in common, the only one which I disagree is his five stars to Traffic's Shoot out at the fantasy factory. But the rest, overall when it comes to the top ten bands, our ratings are practically the same.

Greg W wrote: I don't have a specific reveiwer who wows me. I usually scroll down past the official reviewers and read only the guest reviewers who have written well thought out reviews. Honest reviews done by normal people.

that's a weird impression, what do you mean by "normal people" and by "guest reviewers"?

the people who haven't been promoted or awarded as "prog reviewers" aren't..."guest reviewers"!