Review censorship

Wow... I submitted a not so flattering review for Dark Side of the Moon. Nothing offensive, I was just saying it was over-rated and nothing compared to what Yes and Genesis were doing at the time. I made the point that it doesn't matter if this is the best selling record of all time, it's just not interesting.

If your review contained as much information as what you're saying here about the album, I can understand why the admins deleted it ... it doesn't meet the requirements.

 Yes, we all love DSotM so much that we delete every review of the album that isn't completely flattering. Or maybe you review was deleted because it violated the rules of the site, which are all logical and well thought-out. Now which scenario is more likely....?

Your reviews could have been deleted for being inappropriate or not meeting the review guidelines.

Here are the review guidelines,written by Easy Livin,one of our admins and reviews managers.They are posted as an announcement topic at the top of each forum section.

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13152&FID=3&PR=3
    

Edited by TheProgtologist - August 10 2006 at 15:19

Guigo, reviews moderator wrote: Even not liking, the reviewer cannot be cynical or a bit disrespectful toward the artist and other reviewers.   Also, I agree with Fitz, think how revolutionary were at their time artists like Louis Armstrong, Tom Jobim, Peter Gabriel, etc.   I believe that with some edits the DSOTM review may stay - for awhile only the rating is preserved. I'll try to contact the reviewer.

stonebeard wrote: Guigo, reviews moderator wrote: Even not liking, the reviewer cannot be cynical or a bit disrespectful toward the artist and other reviewers.   Also, I agree with Fitz, think how revolutionary were at their time artists like Louis Armstrong, Tom Jobim, Peter Gabriel, etc.   I believe that with some edits the DSOTM review may stay - for awhile only the rating is preserved. I'll try to contact the reviewer.

case closed?

pirkka wrote:   reviews must be objective   ????   If I, or who so eve,r write a review it will be subjective. They are all subjective. Because they are someones opinions. Only an extremely skillfull professional can write an objective review. That is such that one cannot argue. I don't wan't to read objective reviews. I want to read different people's opinions (=subjective).

you're right, objetive wasn't the word i was looking for... but a review should try to look at different sides of the music.  For instance in my reviews I usually have a sentence or two in which I say "you probably won't like this album if you don't like....", etc.  You shouldn't just say "this album was popular and therefore it is bad".  Despite the fact that anyone can contribute, we still do have a pretty high standard for the reviews and i think that's a good thing.  You shouln't have people going around in reviews saying "this album sucks because this band sucks" or whatever.  I don't like neo-prog, so I just don't review neo-prog bands... I don't go giving them all 1 or 2-star reviews.

but again, you're right... a review is essentially an opinion and therefore subjective.

about the subjective/objective thing (off subject), I always consider the mixture of both to be the "perfect recipe". 

Ricochet wrote: about the subjective/objective thing (off subject), I always consider the mixture of both to be the "perfect recipe".

Cygnus X-2 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Ricochet wrote: about the subjective/objective thing (off subject), I always consider the mixture of both to be the "perfect recipe".    The Recipe for Masterliness.

........................................nah!