Why are reviews weighted now

The problem is that everyone understands prog a little bit differently, and thus the star ratings are still a very subjective thing, even if the guidelines try to make it more objective.

One person's progressive masterpiece can seem to be not progressive at all to another person.

Sean Trane wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: The problem is that everyone understands prog a little bit differently, and thus the star ratings are still a very subjective thing, even if the guidelines try to make it more objective. One person's progressive masterpiece can seem to be not progressive at all to another person. [IMG]smileys/smiley1.gif" align=middle>   Problem is that for some people , every Cd they buy or own is a masterpiece. [IMG]height=17 alt=Ouch src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley18.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>

True. I admit that a high percentage of my own collection would receive 5 star ratings from me if I had to rate them all. That's of course because I tend to sell albums which I don't like (and that includes average albums which are "technically" 3 star albums).

I'm sure that in most album collection the percentage of 4/5 star albums will be much higher than in a complete albums list like the progarchives.
    

Easy Livin wrote: All. The sniping isn't really helping, Yargh is asking a reasonable question, although phrases like "The people who run this place sure never pass up a chance to wallow in elitist, self-congratualory filth" do little to further his cause or invite a rational response.   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.

Wow! That was an amazingly reasonable and polite response to a line of postings which had become rather nasty. Just to put in my two cents worth - I think the weighted system is an excellent compromise, It gives more emphasis to reviewed ratings, while still allowing non-english speakers a chance to participate. (and also makes it more difficult to manipulate the top 100 as has been threatened by some!).

MikeEnRegalia wrote: The problem is that everyone understands prog a little bit differently, and thus the star ratings are still a very subjective thing, even if the guidelines try to make it more objective. One person's progressive masterpiece can seem to be not progressive at all to another person.

I don't think that's the problem - I think that's the strength of this system.

Any ratings system will be subjective - that's part of the point.

When I read a review, I can see how the reviewer has interpreted our rating system, and that makes me adjust how I perceive his opinions on the music.

If it's clear the reviewer thinks it's a 1-5 scale, then chances are I won't read all of the review, as there will be no attempt at objectivity.

If it's clear the reviewer understands what we are trying to get at, then the review itself becomes far more interesting, and the music itself is more interesting as a result.

Who cares if someone thinks an album pwnz teh rest - I want to know WHY.
     

MikeEnRegalia wrote: "Attempt at objectivity" ... let me quote Woody Allen: Objectivity is subjective". [IMG]height=17 alt=LOL src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley36.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>   I agree about the review text being more important than anything else, but I don't think that it makes sense to even try to make the ratings objective. That's why I impose no rules on my own website - anything goes. I might give some hints as to what might be a good rating strategy ... but in the end I only say "you have 15 steps ... apply them to the albums you know as you see fit".

    
OK, that's fine for your website, Mike, but I find the 5 ratings here perfectly useable - and I am particularly not keen on an "anything goes" strategy, as it leads to people raving about their favourite albums rather than considering why other Proggers might be interested in the music.

It's THAT difference that makes ProgArchives what it is.

And it's perfectly possible to be objective about music - if it has Mellotrons in it, then it has Mellotrons - no question about it.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ But you're assuming that all members are experts. That's not the case, even taking into account that many of them (us) are musicians. You simply cannot expect people to analyze music on that level. And even if we were all experts there would still be different opinions even about established albums like CttE.   No, I will pursue my "anything goes" approach on my website and see what happens.[IMG]height=17 alt=Smile src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley1.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle> But I will focus more on individual (per user) top lists and pages than on overall averages and top lists.

No, I'm not assuming that everyone's an expert - I'm assuming that everyone has a brain and is capable of actually hearing the music they like for what it is - and writing about it using specific guidelines in order to make their reviews useful to fans of Progressive Rock.

The guidelines we give on this site do not expect anyone to undertake graduate level analysis - I for one have never gone fully down that route, and it's rare that anyone goes further than UK GCSE level.

Besides, this is Rock music we're talking about, not high-level art music. Most of it doesn't stand up to academic analysis.

The closest I have gone to academic level is in my review of Shub-Niggurath, as I felt that an academic understanding of the compositional methods used could help lead to a greater understanding of what the band were trying to achieve. Plus I spotted those techniques immediately and it was fun to write about the way the band had used them.

I hope I speak for the majority of Proggers when I say I find it very boring to see endless reviews stating "I really like this", or "This bit is really good, that bit is superb and the guitar solo is wonderful". What does that actually tell you about the music?

While you can check out other bands that the reviewer likes and draw some narrow conclusions, I think that the reviews should stand on their own feet and say something - otherwise why not just go to Amazon or RateYourMusic instead?

It bores me rigid when people waffle on about time signatures and widdly-woo solos, so I agree in that respect - analysis can be too detailled, and I also totally agree that so-called experts quite often don't seem to know what they're talking about - which is why I try very hard not to be one.

I think that it's interesting to note where particular instruments are used - particularly in unusual ways, or where snippets of "classical" or jazz music are mixed in with the rock and how successful the juxtaposition is to the reviewer in creating a progressive effect - and you don't need to study music to write about those things - you just need to listen and think.

It becomes easier with practice - and I think it has more value for Prog fans than "How much do you like it 1 - 10", which anyone can do on hundreds of other sites that cater for such things.

Not to butt in or anything and perhaps its too late, but even after the administrator gave yargh a nice well thought out repsonse his reply was still hostile and uncooperative. I admit I am new to the prog archives message boards but past experience shows the belligerents like this fellow get banned from the boards. Not that im suggesting since his last post was 10 days ago, but what exactly is the rationale behind this.

I like the way ratings and reviews are weighted like this