Reviews discussion

colorofmoney91 wrote: 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? Nah, that's pretty much it. It came to mind while I was writing a term paper for my systems analysis class

Sorry, I was asking other people to contribute, not for you to improve on the initial idea. I'm tired...

colorofmoney91 wrote: Epignosis wrote: 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. Sorry, I'm on some new medication for my stomach problems and it's suddenly made me lightheaded and confused so my sentences are kind of wild. I was referring to your statement, "What one person finds informative, another may find uninformative.". Based on this, someone's review that I perceive as being uninformative might be informative to another user in the same way that one of my reviews may be uninformative to you but might be informative to any other user. My point is, based on what criteria are short reviews universally informative? This doesn't make any sense but I'll post it anyway.

I would never say that short reviews are universally uninformative.

What I am saying to you is this: If you are unsatisfied with your reviews, revise them.  As for the other reviewers...it's their names on their reviews.  If a person sees so many "uninformative" reviews from John Doe, then John Doe will likely be ignored, even if his is the first or second one on the left-hand side.

colorofmoney91 wrote: I was recently discussing with a moderator about the possibility of me becoming a Prog Reviewer, but I'm unable to without rewriting 200+ of my old, short, bad reviews that I started out with, which is an insane proposition honestly, but it's entirely my own fault for being such a crap reviewer.  But the discussion also pointed out that some collaborators and PRs also have short, uninformative reviews that aren't really worth putting in the featured "Collaborators/Experts Reviews" column and only serve the purpose of putting collaborators higher on the most prolific reviewers list.  I was thinking that since reviews are not published unless they meet the minimum requirement of 100 characters, perhaps a change could be made to not place collaborator/prog reviewer reviews in the featured columns unless they meet a minimum character requirement of, I dunno, maybe 300. All reviews, collab or not, would be published in the side column instead of the featured spot.  This would give people who started out writing bad reviews but were able to grow in composition style, like myself, to be able to earn our deserved promoted positions without going through the ridiculous process of rewriting or deleting large amounts of review work.  Still, non-collab and non-PR reviews would stay in the side column unless the user is promoted. The above rule is only designed for users under collab or PR status. Based on the limited knowledge of computer programming that I have, it seems like it would be an easily implemented argument. What do you think? inb4 Snow Dog calls me an a****le or something. ------------------------------------ My description is convoluted so I thought I'd chart what I mean. All non-collab/PR reviews = side column Collab/PR reviews & not 300 characters = side column Collab/PR reviews &  300 characters = "Collaborators/Expert Reviews" column

First, no one's early reviews can be worse than mine. I didn't fix a lot of them because I was honestly embarrassed to read them

I like the idea a lot. Reasonable, feasible. Should keep as many people happy as possible (since ya know, no matter what someone is always pissed off).

Snow Dog wrote: colorofmoney91 wrote: inb4 Snow Dog calls me an a****le or something. Why would I do that? This a pretty random think to say. Have I done something to upset you?

Snow Dog wrote: colorofmoney91 wrote: inb4 Snow Dog calls me an a****le or something. Why would I do that? This a pretty random think to say. Have I done something to upset you?

You Brits aren't the only ones to have difficult humor ya know

It's a great idea Alan.

As it's been said a short review =/= uninformative but we all know it...some reviews are just not of great quality and you know not a great deal of time was invested. Which is 1000% fine, but I know quite a few people have expressed being a bit miffed they put in a great deal of work and it gets hidden by a paragraph long review saying "This is a good album, it's prog rock like Rush style, these are some good songs I like it 4 stars"


Oh, in the mean time do get in the habit of fixing up old reviews, not even to get promoted but just to do!
It sucks, but if you enjoy it like I do, I always felt better knowing I don't have this horrendous POS sitting there to my name.


Edited by JJLehto - March 04 2012 at 17:10

colorofmoney91 wrote: Epignosis wrote:   I would never say that short reviews are universally uninformative. What I am saying to you is this: If you are unsatisfied with your reviews, revise them.  As for the other reviewers...it's their names on their reviews.  If a person sees so many "uninformative" reviews from John Doe, then John Doe will likely be ignored, even if his is the first or second one on the left-hand side. But because my old reviews are short and objectively uninformative, I'd have to rewrite them to become promoted, whereas people who are already promoted don't need to revise their old short objectively uninformative reviews to even maintain their promoted status. I'm having a really hard time describing what I mean. BTW, I really love debating things with you. You're well-spoken and you don't get immediately angry like a lot of people do.

I'm not the one who does any promoting.  If I were, I would deny you a promotion on the basis of your Kansas reviews. 

Seriously, I don't have an answer for the apparent inconsistency regarding old reviews.  All I can say is that (again), if I were you, I'd revise my reviews (especially if it meant a status bump).  It's a good exercise anyway.

I personally think people should invest some time in revising old, poor reviews.  Then again, not all of the collaborators were promoted because of their reviews, so there's that to consider.

And thank you!  The feeling is definitely mutual. 

Speaking of reviews, I finally posted a review of a couple of albums that's broad appeal I simply don't get.  I expect plenty of nasty PMs.  

Epignosis wrote: Speaking of reviews, I finally posted a review of a couple of albums that's broad appeal I simply don't get.  I expect plenty of nasty PMs.

Well, except my first ones (logically about my favorite albums like Foxtrot or Close to the Edge which I transferred from another place where I had published them before that are pretty short) all my reviews have an average of 500 words, but there are a few that have less than 300 words that I'm pretty proud about,

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - March 04 2012 at 17:31

Yes, but for those albums that are so bad it's therefore not that big a deal. You know what I mean?
You are saying the limit shouldn't be changed because some don't need 300 words, but that hurts good reviews of good albums. Also, as you said if it doesn't need 500 words to say (this is crap) then it shouldn't be showcased anyway

And yes, no one is saying delete reviews because that's terrible, and no one is saying reviews should be judged on the # of words.
It needs to be read. As you said Ivan, song long reviews are terrible and make no sense with their criticism, but so do short ones.

We've seen 100 word reviews saying "this is terrible, what is wrong with this band they suck" and that's no good.
Anywho, that be all my input, really not much else to say. Really hope this is implemented


Edited by JJLehto - March 04 2012 at 17:43