1 Registration Process for FORUM+Review

Hi one and all..

This is my first posting in any of the Prog Archives forums, after having been a member for something just over a month...so, apologies in advance if I don't appear to grasp all the nuances of the issue, or if I repeat any already well-worn opinions on the subject.

I initially cast a 'no' vote in the poll, for the same reasons as a lot of others here. As much as I like to consider myself (and with pride) an elitist music snob, the notion of limiting reviews to members seemed to me a benign form of censorship, despite the real danger of too much riff-raff cluttering the site. Speaking personally, it's always easy to recognize a duff opinion when I read one, and use it as a sort of negative guide if necessary.

Also, I wasn't entirely clear on the distinction between Forum Members and Prog Reviewers (like me). I was first attracted to the Archives by the wealth and scope of its listings, and welcomed the opportunity to maybe plug a few opinion holes for some overlooked or undervalued albums. So I've been concentrating my energies there instead of here, in the discussions forum, where I could see myself easily becoming lost in a hothouse of arguments, agreements, advice, articulate announcements, and so forth (quoting Mr. Belew, of course).

But, and this is only how I first understood the poll question, would that make a wallflower like me ineligable to post reviews?

Cutting to the chase in my usual long-winded fashion: after considering the thrust and parry of the last few pages here, I probably should have voted 'yes' instead...serves me right for not heeding the famous words of Buster Keaton: think slow, act fast. Admin's  clarified guidelines make a lot of sense in retrospect, and though it won't entirely weed out the waste it would certainly make it easier to identify the abusers, and presumably slap their wrists.

And I would throw my support behind the addition of some sort of comments option on the review pages, as long as they followed a link here to the forums and left the actual review section of the site itself sacrosanct. That way, as hoped, space won't be wasted in the wrong place for bruised egos and misinformed retaliatory rants.

But please stop any of this talk about quotas, unless it's about a cap to the number of reviews any one album can support. I know it's always hard to resist adding another expert opinion to the mix, but does something like Close To The Edge (a totally random example, but apparently a good one: I just checked and it has 141 ratings to date!) really need even one more review, no matter how insightful and/or enlightening?

I think I'll return to hibernation now...literally, since it's about 10 degrees fahrenheit outside tonight in my neck of the suburban wilderness..

Thanks,

MJN

Ok M@x here goes,

How about a loose minimum standard of what a review should be?  That does not mean anything about the content but the Review should:

A. Be about the album you are reviewing (Not like the Radio head reviews that were basically forum discussions or like the Bill Bruford stalker doing Tony Banks Reviews)

B. Give a clear and concise definition of the album. (Historical information about the band is fine but don't make that your review)

And add a note that all reviews are subject to review by the forum administrators and will be removed if they are flaming in nature or deemed irrelevant as a review with an reminder that such things can be posted in the forums.

I also agree that the reviews should be kept open to everyone. I think that a good part of us would've not become Collaborators if the Archives had not been open to everyone. Max approached me on the second or third day of my reviewing (early febr 04) and I gave a resounding YES the following week. I stayed away from the forum much longer registering in september 04 and actually started participating some five weeks ago. We seem to be fairly careful and conscious enough reporting abusive reviews and Max@ does a fine job deleting them. As Usual Maani says some very good things about reviews being written by others than members.

I agree with the members using their real names on reviews and nicknames on the Forum. It seems the logical way. But I do find it useful to link the nicknames to the real names. It turns out that some of those writings reviews were also the more useful and informative forum members.

^ Think about it more like voting...the more people who say the same thing, the more the album will achieve its rightful position...whatever that may be. 

Also, there may be something specific about the way you say something that sticks in a reader's mind...even if it's essentially something other people have said before, your choice of words or particular interpretation may be the one that helps them decide if the album is for them (or not).

Speaking solely as a member (i.e., not officially), I voted "no," for two reasons.

First, as some have pointed out, there are plenty of good reviews by non-members - some as good or better than those written by members.  True, there will always be "gooks" who write bad reviews.  But I believe the decent, good and excellent ones way outweight the bad ones.

Second - and I'm sorry to have to point this out - there are plenty of members who do not write reviews, or write far too few.  Indeed, there are senior members and collaborators who are, sadly, surprisingly "lazy" in this regard.  (Sorry, guys...)

If we are going to allow only members to review albums, then I think it should be tied to a quota - and, no, I'm not kidding.  Those who think that only members should be writing reviews - especially those of you who are lazy in this regard (and there are far too many) - should have to "get off your duffs" and start writing a heck of a lot more reviews than you do.  Is this what you want?  Wouldn't that be fair?

Actually, I don't really care whether senior members and/or collaborators are lazy about reviewing.  Max has chosen not to institute a quota, despite my repeated suggestions in that regard.  And I respect his decision.

I would prefer to leave things status quo.  However, if so many of you are going to insist that only members write reviews, I would not support that unless a quota - on all of us - was instituted.

Peace.

ivan_2068 wrote: Well, I use my real name in the Reviews and my nick in the forum (Which is in fact part of my real name), mostly because I use the same nick in every forum I write, hope there's not a problem. Iván

And here I thought all this time your last name was 2068.

M@X wrote: Then, Forum Name (and Real Name optional) !

Thank you, M@X.

I would only want my forum name displayed in my reviews in ProgArchives, as it is at present. I am still accountable to the site owners by my e-mail address, a prerequisite of registration. I prefer to keep my real name off the site so that there is no correlation between my professional presence on Web sites and my personal presence on Web sites for hobby reasons (e.g. this site). I understand that this may not be an issue for some, but I would prefer to have just my forum name displayed. I don't want someone Googling my real name to find my professional Web site and instead finding ProgArchives (Not that I've got anything against ProgArchives, of course!).