prog reviewers

erik neuteboom wrote: I have written the biography about Gracious for this site, my negative remark about Mandrakeroot his review is that he forgets to mention that Gracious released another CD (This is ... Gracious) on which the band showcases a stunning progress. In my opinion it's important to point at these facts in reviews in order to inform the reader/visitor sufficient. Because one could think, while reading the review by Mandrakeroot, that Gracious was not a very interesting band. And that's not true!

I agree, Erik... but should the reference "debut album" mean that some other album(s) was/were released?  

Pals, we keep an eye (sometimes two eyes) for some reviews and their reviewers. Some we edit and others we delete (making the communication to the reviewer), others we keep in observation trying to extract something useful or interesting.  It's obvious that we also make mistakes.

For this particular reviewer I made a personal research and discovered that the majority can understand his messages and many are very interested 'cause he evaluates a great number of rare albums.

magog, the first time I could understand Mandrake was doing a reverse translation to Italian. Since you're an Italian too, maybe it'll work.

Ah, so that's the review. I must say it does look like it was taken through an online translator a few times before being posted.

I can still understand what he says, of course.

 -- Ivan

I actually understood everything before the "punchline", during which I got completely lost.

Reviews *are* being controlled and even rather strictly - if noticed, the special PA team deleted all the reviews that rate an album too high or too low without either not going into detail why they like it or telling about the music.

I don't quite understand it though, did you not like Mandrake's review? Or found it difficult to understand? Are you sure it isn't your English that is the problem?

 -- Ivan