1 Registration Process for FORUM+Review

I agree with Cert (there really should be a sucking-up emoticon).

I think the possibility to choose would be the best option (some people might only want to show their nick, or only their real name for privacy reasons, or other reasons).

I'm getting enthiousiastic about the re-vamp and the current additions/changes that have been made. very good work.

Reed Lover wrote: Great job Max Agree with Cert, too.The name display should be compulsory but whether it be forum name or real name should be optional.

I really think it should be the forum name. Or else the real name would link to your PM's in the forum. This would give the review (and the reviewer) some accountability. Certainly You or Cert would be accountable it is not so much for you but for others like the Bill Bruford lurker using Tony Banks reviews to tell us how great Bill Bruford is. At least the reader can contact the person doing so. Or if there is a question.

I would only want my forum name displayed in my reviews in ProgArchives, as it is at present. I am still accountable to the site owners by my e-mail address, a prerequisite of registration. I prefer to keep my real name off the site so that there is no correlation between my professional presence on Web sites and my personal presence on Web sites for hobby reasons (e.g. this site). I understand that this may not be an issue for some, but I would prefer to have just my forum name displayed. I don't want someone Googling my real name to find my professional Web site and instead finding ProgArchives (Not that I've got anything against ProgArchives, of course!).

 

Edited by Fitzcarraldo

M@X wrote: Then, Forum Name (and Real Name optional) !

Thank you, M@X.

 

 

ivan_2068 wrote: Well, I use my real name in the Reviews and my nick in the forum (Which is in fact part of my real name), mostly because I use the same nick in every forum I write, hope there's not a problem. Iván

And here I thought all this time your last name was 2068.

ivan_2068 wrote: Nope Gdub,that's the year I will die according to a psychic fiancee a friend had.  Even though I'm almost sure she is some kind of psycho more than a psychic. Iván

Talking about longevity...

Speaking solely as a member (i.e., not officially), I voted "no," for two reasons.

First, as some have pointed out, there are plenty of good reviews by non-members - some as good or better than those written by members.  True, there will always be "gooks" who write bad reviews.  But I believe the decent, good and excellent ones way outweight the bad ones.

Second - and I'm sorry to have to point this out - there are plenty of members who do not write reviews, or write far too few.  Indeed, there are senior members and collaborators who are, sadly, surprisingly "lazy" in this regard.  (Sorry, guys...)

If we are going to allow only members to review albums, then I think it should be tied to a quota - and, no, I'm not kidding.  Those who think that only members should be writing reviews - especially those of you who are lazy in this regard (and there are far too many) - should have to "get off your duffs" and start writing a heck of a lot more reviews than you do.  Is this what you want?  Wouldn't that be fair?

Actually, I don't really care whether senior members and/or collaborators are lazy about reviewing.  Max has chosen not to institute a quota, despite my repeated suggestions in that regard.  And I respect his decision.

I would prefer to leave things status quo.  However, if so many of you are going to insist that only members write reviews, I would not support that unless a quota - on all of us - was instituted.

Peace.

^ Think about it more like voting...the more people who say the same thing, the more the album will achieve its rightful position...whatever that may be. 

Also, there may be something specific about the way you say something that sticks in a reader's mind...even if it's essentially something other people have said before, your choice of words or particular interpretation may be the one that helps them decide if the album is for them (or not).

I also agree that the reviews should be kept open to everyone. I think that a good part of us would've not become Collaborators if the Archives had not been open to everyone. Max approached me on the second or third day of my reviewing (early febr 04) and I gave a resounding YES the following week. I stayed away from the forum much longer registering in september 04 and actually started participating some five weeks ago. We seem to be fairly careful and conscious enough reporting abusive reviews and Max@ does a fine job deleting them. As Usual Maani says some very good things about reviews being written by others than members.

I agree with the members using their real names on reviews and nicknames on the Forum. It seems the logical way. But I do find it useful to link the nicknames to the real names. It turns out that some of those writings reviews were also the more useful and informative forum members.

 

Edited by Sean Trane

 

Ok M@x here goes,

 

How about a loose minimum standard of what a review should be?  That does not mean anything about the content but the Review should:

A. Be about the album you are reviewing (Not like the Radio head reviews that were basically forum discussions or like the Bill Bruford stalker doing Tony Banks Reviews)

B. Give a clear and concise definition of the album. (Historical information about the band is fine but don't make that your review)

And add a note that all reviews are subject to review by the forum administrators and will be removed if they are flaming in nature or deemed irrelevant as a review with an reminder that such things can be posted in the forums.