Reviews discussion

colorofmoney91 wrote: But rewriting a huge number of reviews seems asinine to me.

If I were you, I'd rewrite one a day or so until I was satisfied.

Guldbamsen wrote: I don't think that is fair. A lot of the old writers here started out doing shorter ones too, and these are still left as they were. Personally I feel it adds to a writers history - a sort of evolution if you will. How much further one has come with reviewing.

I only said what I would do if I were in his shoes.  That's all.

Epignosis wrote: colorofmoney91 wrote: But rewriting a huge number of reviews seems asinine to me. If I were you, I'd rewrite one a day or so until I was satisfied.

octopus-4 wrote: Epignosis wrote: colorofmoney91 wrote: But rewriting a huge number of reviews seems asinine to me. If I were you, I'd rewrite one a day or so until I was satisfied. I've rewritten three or four of my oldies, and sooner or later I'll rewrite some of my early Senmuth's which I have written before understanding enough the artist. Yesterday I have edited one of my old reviews of Quintorigo because relistening to an album I have spotted something that I haven't noticed before...I don't think it's a strange thing.   As awell as you haven't written 200 reviews in a day, you don't need to rewrite all those you consider poor in one shot.

colorofmoney91 wrote: But what about the prog reviewers and collaborators with featured reviews that are short and uninformative but refuse to revise them despite them being the first reviews seen on an album's page?

Brevity is one thing (as an English teacher, I believe a person should use as few words as possible to communicate an idea), but uninformative is another.

What we don't want to see are people padding their reviews with filler to meet a 300 word mark.  The problem with calling something "uninformative" is that its a subjective judgment call: What one person finds informative, another may find uninformative.

But for those who refuse to revise old reviews, that reflects on them (again, that's me talking).

Epignosis wrote: colorofmoney91 wrote: But what about the prog reviewers and collaborators with featured reviews that are short and uninformative but refuse to revise them despite them being the first reviews seen on an album's page? Brevity is one thing (as an English teacher, I believe a person should use as few words as possible to communicate an idea), but uninformative is another. What we don't want to see are people padding their reviews with filler to meet a 300 word mark.  The problem with calling something "uninformative" is that its a subjective judgment call: What one person finds informative, another may find uninformative. But for those who refuse to revise old reviews, that reflects on them (again, that's me talking).

There are a few collabs (not going to mention names) whose reviews are always short and I find contain almost no information about the album, so I see your point.

It's a very interesting idea, thanks Alan. I think it would have deserved a thread of its own in the "Help Us Improve" section, but I don't have the time now to move 30 posts.

Sounds feasible from a technical point of view, like going from status to status + a certain length as the criteria for showing reviews in the left column. It would probably need M@x doing some scripting, though.

Any other opinions?

colorofmoney91 wrote: Epignosis wrote: colorofmoney91 wrote: But what about the prog reviewers and collaborators with featured reviews that are short and uninformative but refuse to revise them despite them being the first reviews seen on an album's page? Brevity is one thing (as an English teacher, I believe a person should use as few words as possible to communicate an idea), but uninformative is another. What we don't want to see are people padding their reviews with filler to meet a 300 word mark.  The problem with calling something "uninformative" is that its a subjective judgment call: What one person finds informative, another may find uninformative. But for those who refuse to revise old reviews, that reflects on them (again, that's me talking). Then why does it matter if my or anyone else's old shorter reviews are uninformative to one person? The keyword here is old, because a lot of people have grown in their composition style over time.

I'm not sure how to answer your question.

harmonium.ro wrote: It's a very interesting idea, thanks Alan. I think it would have deserved a thread of its own in the "Help Us Improve" section, but I don't have the time now to move 30 posts. Sounds feasible from a technical point of view, like going from status to status + a certain length as the criteria for showing reviews in the left column. It would probably need M@x doing some scripting, though. Any other opinions?