Why are reviews weighted now

 

BTW: You can come to my website, no review needed, no weighting! But I think it's just a different approach, not necessarily a better one.

 

 

 

"You are free to leave of course."

 

Instead of discouraging people, you might want to actually defend this asnine decision.  You can't?  Didn't think so. 

 

The people who run this place sure never pass up a chance to wallow in elitist, self-congratualory filth.  As I previously stated:  rating albums and not reviewing them allows a person to review more albums early on, and establishes an individual baseline for the (incredibly limited) 5-star system that this place adheres to (changes that would actually be a benefit to the site appear to not to register.  Livin' must remain easy, I guess).  Furthermore, the marginal utility of a written review diminishes after a certain amount of them are posted  There probably doesn't need to be more than 10 well-thought reviews of any album; 20 at the absolute most.  Nobody except the writer is going to read reviews farther down than this.  But should a person's opinion of an album be diminished because he happened to join the party late? 

 

Then, there's people like myself who write reviews for other sites and therefore can't post them here.  The premise of some people's opinions mattering more than others -- based on the criteria being used here -- is simply not defensible, because there is no correlation between willingness to write a review on this site and the amount of knowledge a person has of the music OR the number of reviews the person may have written overall, but not for this site.

 

The policy also discriminates against non-English speakers and -- trust me -- NOBODY wants a policy that encourages more of these horribly-written disgraces to the language that seem to be regularly turned out by our non-English speaking friends, in an attempt for their ratings to count. 

"Why should we? It has all been said and talked about a thousand times. In the other thread you yourself described how easily the ratings can be manipulated by ratings without reviews.

 

I rest my case."

 

Typical.  Like a frightened mouse, you don't even make a single argument in defense of the idiocy.  IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NONE.

 

Powned!

 

Yargh. There was a strong push to remove all ratings without reviews from the site. Many people, indeed the majority, felt that they corrupted the ratings as those who submitted them did not have to back them up with narrative.

 

The owners of the site (you know, the ones who "wallow in elitist, self-congratualory filth") were against the removal of ratings without reviews, essentially for the reasons you have given. It was therefore agreed to reward those who go to the trouble of writing reviews by giving their submissions extra weight.

 

Your own reasons for not submitting reviews are dubious. You are clearly literate (even if you do feel you cannot fully express yourself without swearing). Surely the reviews you write for other sites are your own, and you can psot them elsewhere if you wish. Failing that, you can always write different reviews for different sites, the choice is yours.

 

Your opinion on what I've said may of course be different, but please try to respond without resorting to insulting anyone.

 

The people who run this place sure never pass up a chance to wallow in elitist, self-congratualory filth.

Keep up with the encouragement!

 

 

 

Hear Hear

 

A masterpiece of a progressive  answer