too heavily weighted ratings ? its outrageous

^ Not a rule again. More not necessarily means better. Someone's 50 reviews could be more interesting than 1000 reviews of another person.

I agree with Iván, maybe not accentuating the fact that many of us work as Collaborators in teams (out of the über-reviewers, ZowieZiggy, Gatot, sinkadotentree and even Erik don't actually), but just pointing out that further discrepancies between Prog Reviews & Collaborators, regarding their reviews' weight, should be avoided: we're all equal in our reviewing, after all, once being promoted.

Here's my scheme:
 >> basically, since everyone who wants to review has to create a forum identity first (the previous years it wasn't necessary), we have

1. forum members who rate without reviewing - I'll call them raters - who are practically anonymous, they could be from ordinary Joe to Stephen Hawking, it wouldn't matter. Raters' reviewers are, IMO, totally "entitled" to weigh minimum, because their rate simply contributes to charts; by writing no review, they practically don't enunciate any opinion about the album - except that the rate can be defined according to parameters. I'd remind my personal opinion that ratings without reviews aren't okay, then again the best argument for them seems to be that no one knows English...

2. forum members who review - reviewers (doh!) - in this case, it's okay to make their reviews count somehow, but we have to think that they could be, behind their nicks, from trolls to great writers. The great reviewers are, eventually, always promoted.

3. promoted forum members who review - Prog Reviewers, Collaborators, Special Collaborators, Admins - if you can understand my underlining: any of these kind of promoted forum members (can) review, so practically none of these should be preferentially favored, in reviews' weight, in comparison with others. Maybe some Specialists such as Sean Trane, Clem, Iván and such take a special step in reviewing albums from the Genre they're specialists (which is normal), but that's not a stone-written rule, in order to make those reviews count more.

My point on topic: it's much better to credit, with a higher weight, a "promoted forum member"'s review, because this member was promoted based on his review/or prog knowledge, so that also means a responsibility of writing above average reviews. Instead, we continuously report forum members who troll or write poorly through reviews - not to say, on the other hand, that the quality reviewers wouldn't be more than 50%. It's just that, except if writing indescifrably (aka me ) or in a controversial way, the change of a "promoted forum member" being reported for troll reviews is minor - given the responsability of that member's promotion.

--

Oh, blink once for Yes and twice for No if you get my point.


Edited by Ricochet - October 10 2008 at 13:48

Well, Yorkie X, you're right. If you were a Reviewer, I wouldn't like that you're ratings were weighted. Actually, I have to say that I noticed that you and White Feather
have some similarities.. I'm not saying you're the same person but it would be nice weighting.. like giving more 5- and 1-star ratings. And I'm not saying it's wrong, either, but for example Änglagård - Hybris, or other one-star ratings, it would be nicer if there was some explanations. Rarely one-star ratings are actually reviewed. I understand it for example if the album actually is so bad that it would be waste of time. And I also understand that you can always decide the rating and weight yourself to some extend. 

But I think you're right. I'm not sure how much they can be weighted, but for example factor could be 1,25 at its highest. And also the length of a review - 150 is nice but I like to read 50 words reviews, too.



Edited by progressive - October 14 2008 at 12:49

You mean 50-word ratings? There are but I remember that my rating under 100 words didn't appear. And I don't mean it should be on the main page of PA, but somewhere :D

"Reviews should be a MINIMUM 50 words preferably substantially more, no maximum."
But I remember 150 words being a limit nowadays. So, is there old information, and actually two different kind of minimums?


Edited by progressive - October 14 2008 at 13:15

^ I think some things should stay unchanged. If in future there will be new rules (for example, 150 words), all previous reviews, containing less words, will disappear.

Even now I think 100 words are sometimes too much, especially for albums reviewed and rated hundreds of times.

^ Is not it better, in order to prevent the site getting slower, to stop reviewing CTTE, ITCOTCK, DTSOM and other albums with hundreds of ratings?

For example, 801 reviews and ratings of "Selling England by the Pound" - it's crazy! Who will read them all?
I understand when newbies want to see their thoughts published somewhere. But almost everyday I see on the main page the same popular albums reviewed by collabs and prog reviewers. What moves them to do it is a mystery to me.

It seems to me it's obvious thing: look, before writing a review, whether you have something new to say. But I see it's not so obvious for many. As a result we have a lot of the same thoughts repeated countless times.



Edited by NotAProghead - October 14 2008 at 17:30

^ I don't propose any artificial restrictions. I only propose, especially to collabs, think before writing reviews, is it really necessary.

And again, there are better ways to prevent pages getting slower than "bury" short reviews. For example, show on an album page some number of reviews (20, 50 or 100, I don't know) and something like "More reviews" reference for those who can't get enough.

^ Ivan, some obscure albums have only short reviews. In case of 150 words restriction they will be hidden.

At last it is in some way unfair: at the moment of writing short reviews corresponded to guidelines. Authors did not expect their reviews will be invisible.

And I don't like the tendency to force people "speak more and more". Long does not always mean good.

Inded Ivan. The minimum number of words rule is intended to encourage reviewers to go beyond simply saying "This is a good album", "This is a bad album" etc. 

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Russelk, I don't make the rules, they are done by the owners, and they have reasons to do it.   Plus the rule is in 100 words, not in 150, which BTW is  a very  rational limit IMO, there's very little to be said in less than 100 words in the case of a review, except I like it , it’s my all time favorite band, a masterpiece that  nobody should avoid etc..   A limit must be placed somewhere, and I believe 100 is perfect.   This reply has exactly 104 words… Do you believe normally you can review an album in less than this?   Iván

???

What? Wazzat? Ivan, I haven't posted on this thread for a week, and I don't have a problem about word limits. Are you sure you didn't mean to critique someone else? Weren't you arguing with NotaProghead?

???


Edited by russellk - October 15 2008 at 19:50