http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=58836 - http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=58836

http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=58837 - http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=58837

Who is this kid? These aren't really reviews... and why does he have two screennames? Can someone put some limitations on AKA's for new members?

These phony one star/five star reviews are getting to be obnoxious and troublesome. What say you, reader wasting his/her time on my new topic?

tabarnak

His arguments are clear. Now I know why he hates those albums.

I just saw the Genesis review of SEBTP thats up on the main page now, and I am MAD!!!

WHAT AN IDIOT!!!!!!!

Is there any way for him to be banned from the site?

The Ryan wrote: If a non-preposition word is being repeated in a review, the review should never be seen by us, the readers, and should be deleted from the website. Also these people who rate albums without reviewing... pitiful! This new guy is just an example of such idiocy. Most are not fit to review anyways, in fact I stopped out of respect for the bands and artists.

I believe that rating without reviewing is allowed for non-English speakers, Ryan  

In some cases they send their reviews in their mother language but only the ratings are maintained by the administrators...

Atkingani wrote: The Ryan wrote: If a non-preposition word is being repeated in a review, the review should never be seen by us, the readers, and should be deleted from the website. Also these people who rate albums without reviewing... pitiful! This new guy is just an example of such idiocy. Most are not fit to review anyways, in fact I stopped out of respect for the bands and artists. I believe that rating without reviewing is allowed for non-English speakers, Ryan   In some cases they send their reviews in their mother language but only the ratings are maintained by the administrators...

That's fine - and I wasn't sure about the 'mother language' comment but I guess when you're right you're right. What I don't understand is the "limit" of words needed for a review. Nobody has to apply to such a thing as of last time I checked. Also perhaps if you cannot type English there shouldn't be a rating that has an effect. These non-English speaking peoples never justified their case. I don't want a star rating, I want information. Typing reviews in English is a rule;

I'm just following THIS^ rule - wanting some substantial and valid information when I read reviews. It's just the way I see it, even though nobody has to write a review and can rate an album.

The Ryan wrote: Atkingani wrote: The Ryan wrote: If a non-preposition word is being repeated in a review, the review should never be seen by us, the readers, and should be deleted from the website. Also these people who rate albums without reviewing... pitiful! This new guy is just an example of such idiocy. Most are not fit to review anyways, in fact I stopped out of respect for the bands and artists. I believe that rating without reviewing is allowed for non-English speakers, Ryan   In some cases they send their reviews in their mother language but only the ratings are maintained by the administrators... That's fine - and I wasn't sure about the 'mother language' comment but I guess when you're right you're right. What I don't understand is the "limit" of words needed for a review. Nobody has to apply to such a thing as of last time I checked. Also perhaps if you cannot type English there shouldn't be a rating that has an effect. These non-English speaking peoples never justified their case. I don't want a star rating, I want information. Typing reviews in English is a rule; PROGARCHIVES REVIEWS GUIDELINES: 1 - Write in ENGLISH, we regret that we cannot accept reviews in other languages. Avoid the use of on-line translators wherever possible, they will not do justice to your efforts. Do not use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS in your reviews, standard sentence case should be used at all times. Do not use abbreviations or “texting” language. Remember to check your review for spelling, grammar and punctuation. A poorly presented review can distract the reader from the well written content. Reviews should be a MINIMUM 50 words preferably substantially more, no maximum."   I'm just following THIS^ rule - wanting some substantial and valid information when I read reviews. It's just the way I see it, even though nobody has to write a review and can rate an album.

I agree! I do prefer information than rating. That's the reason which even with certain difficulties, especially for some technical words, I always post a review.

One important thing of PA is to check a review about some band or album as seen by people with different cultural background. The same song may act in a diverse way for an Asian compared with an European due to religion, previous experiences, culture, language, etc.

One good example is Tull's "A passion play"; it seems to me that this work is much more appreciated here in Brazil than in Europe or North American and I don't know why or I think I do since the music deals with death, reincarnation and related stuff where Brazilians seem to accept more easily (only a theory).

These different points of view are one of PA's best goals.

It's hard to do something about stupid reviews, I've been a member of many forums and always some troll manages to post several threads before someone acting, it's natural and almost impossible to avoid.

Checking all the reviews is not practicall, unless you manage a site as GEPR where you make your contribution and it's only added after 2 or 3 months. This wouldn't work here, because the great thing of this place is the speed and thetraffic of reviews.

But we can do something that I've been asking for a lot of time, do not allow ratings without reviews.

1. If you can't take the time o make a review, how can we guess if yopur opinion is reliable?
2. If someone is incapable of making a review, and I'm not talking of a literary work, just a couple of parragraphs telling us why has he reached that qualificatoion, I can't trust in those ratings.

Have you ever noticed that ratings without reviews are usually over or under the average of ratings made by reviewers?

Take for example Kansas (The album to make it easy):

1. 24 ratings
2. 13 reviews with rating that give a total  of 53 stars
3. NO average bellow 3 (only 1 person rates it with 3)
4. 2 reviews with 5 stars
5. 10 reviews with 4 stars

          4.10 stars average

1. 11 ratings without review
2. 2 ratings give 5 stars
3. 3 rating give 4 stars
4. 3 ratings give 3 stars
5. 1 rating gives 2 stars
6. 2 ratings give 1 star

         3.25 stars average

What are the fundaments or arguments oif this two guys to rate this album with one star?

In this case the desviation is rather small due to the short number of ratings, but with more unexplained 1 or 2 stars ratings, the difference will be really higher.

Take FOXTROT, a 5 stars album according to the average no rating with review under 4 stars (Most are 5 stars) except for Imogen Reid's which according to my perspective is inconsistent, because praise the album and gives 2 stars ???? (At least I know what to expect and how Imogen reached that conclusion) and a guy who said he hates keyboards and that's why he rated Foxtrot with two stars (I know this guy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about).

But in the non reviewers section we find 6 one star ratings??? and 4 two stars ratings? How this guys/gals reached those rating? I can't even giuess.

I don't care if somebody gives a contradictory rating (As Imogen)  if he/she gives a valid reason, not even valid, I just need an honest reason. In that case I will read the review and know if the rating is justified or the guy is a lunatic.

But without review, it's easy to bash or to praise in an undeserved way and alter the average.

Please put an end to this chaos, no rating without review!!!!!!!!!!!

Iván

Snow Dog wrote: Like Ivan I have been arguing for all ratings having reviews for a while. At present though the Admin doesn't agree!

Well i think atleast 1 and 5 stars rating should have proper reviews with a somewhat stricter guideline than 2-4 star ratings

Snow Dog wrote: Like Ivan I have been arguing for all ratings having reviews for a while. At present though the Admin doesn't agree!

Not quite SD, it's mailto:M@x - M@x  himself who has decided they should stay.