How much more should collab/reviewer ratings count

what is fair in a utopian site  is everyone having an equal voice...  what reality is though... is different.. we discussed this in the collab area.  People are picked for their knowledge of prog.. and the work they do for the site.  The unbalanced  weights reflect both of those.. that collabs 'generally' know the music best... and most importantly... is one of the few tangible benefits to volunteering for the site and working for it.  To have a greater 'say' or weight.. than those that don't.

maybe it is getting a bit late and the eyes are heavy.. I meant to vote for the way it is....  It doesn't need to be more.. but shouldn't be less.  Must have just voted the collab 'weight'  of 10 


chalk me for a  3... if I read your options right.. that is the way it is now.

First I need to know how much musical theory they know, if they understand every sound every note and every tempo I`m happy , otherwise its just artistic perception and thats not good enough to give 10 times the weight in my book

rileydog22 wrote: If they were experts in music theory they'd have to bash just about everything for some sort of violation or another; for example, most prog-metal albums contain parallel fifths (aka power chords) which music theory declares to be a no-no.

that's assuming those who know music theory have no appreciation for the enjoyment of music, which is a stretch if you ask me...  as to fifth intervals being a 'no-no' in music theory, that makes it sound as if a fifth doesn't (or shouldn't) exist as a two-tone interval, which clearly it does   ..

Definitely more than the common man.

Atavachron wrote: rileydog22 wrote: If they were experts in music theory they'd have to bash just about everything for some sort of violation or another; for example, most prog-metal albums contain parallel fifths (aka power chords) which music theory declares to be a no-no.   that's assuming those who know music theory have no appreciation for the enjoyment of music, which is a stretch if you ask me...  as to fifth intervals being a 'no-no' in music theory, that makes it sound as if a fifth doesn't (or shouldn't) exist as a two-tone interval, which clearly it does   ..

A certain reviewer has irritated me a little on more than one occasion by treating an album nothing more than an academic exercise; sadly for him, rock bands (however loosely you define the term) tend not to release their CDs as answers to exam questions.

i'm going to click "four" here

Don't the collabs get a weight of 10 even if they don't write a review?  

They do, but that is only because few if any do so. It's just a pragmatic move as it keeps the calculations simpler and quicker.

micky wrote: what is fair in a utopian site  is everyone having an equal voice...  what reality is though... is different.. we discussed this in the collab area.  People are picked for their knowledge of prog.. and the work they do for the site.  The unbalanced  weights reflect both of those.. that collabs 'generally' know the music best... and most importantly... is one of the few tangible benefits to volunteering for the site and working for it.  To have a greater 'say' or weight.. than those that don't.

No, they are picked for spending the most time with that section on the site. So if you spend a lot of time reviewing things, you get a lot of credit. But if you instead listen to hundreds of albums and become more knowledgeable, you just get snubbed. I'm not saying that collaborators aren't, I'm just saying that collaborators are just regular prog fans and that differentiating them from everyone else is just a cute way of balancing all of the retards who give only 5s and 1s.

In my opinion:

Ratings without reviews: weight of 1 (if any).

Rating without reviews of people who rated entire band's discography with five stars, or two band's discographies exclusively with five stars and one star: 0. (this could be done with artist's id tagging).

Ratings with reviews:

for reviewers/collabs/members who rated up to 50 albums: weight 5.
for reviewers/collabs/members who rated up to 100 albums: weight 10.
for reviewers/collabs/members who rated up to 150 albums: weight 15.
for reviewers/collabs/members who rated up to 200 albums: weight 20.
etc...

regardless of member/reviewer status.

Our most prolific members will get the "heaviest" rating weights.

I disagree with many of Sean Trane's opinions, and I don't think his reviews are the best reviews around. But damn, if someone was busy enough to take time and rate 2000+ albums, he deserves it!

This is not a warranty for a quality...but we're not talking about quality. The review would be short or long, good or bad, but it's obviously if someone reviewed 100,200, 300 albums, that person had a certain knowledge. And it deserves to be recognized.

At the end of the day, this seems to be again more reviewer-friendly, so to say. But it's not about the elitism or patronizing: if you want your reviews to be appreciated more, start the damn writing. Simple as that.


Edited by clarke2001 - December 22 2007 at 18:57