OK, this has been pissing me off. A reviewer going by the name of "tamtam" has been giving many many albums with an extremely high rating one star when nearly everyone else on that album reviewed it highly. I think five star ratings without reviews should go too, as you don't know if it's the same person or whatever. I mean, "tamtam" took Dredg's El Cielo down to rank 200 something with a one star review, just gave Devin Townsend's Synchestra a two star review, nearly bringing it down out of the five star area whereas EVERY OTHER REVIEWER gave it five stars. He gave Terria 2 stars as well. This is just one example of someone who is knocking albums for no known reason. If you don't like an album that EVERYONE else loves, JUSTIFY IT. Reviews without text should not be allowed, period.

Upon further searching, tamtam also gave CttE 2 stars, The Snow Goose and Relayer 1 star, and SFAM 2 stars. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter, these are all without reviews. Admittedly, he gave Red five stars, but in a way that's just as bad as he could just buffing his favorite bands and knocking others.

I agree fully, in fact i have an idea..

Btw, there's also some geezer who gave most of the albums in the top 10 one lousy star, except for floyd, he gave them both 5 stars

IMO the real problem is we all give too much respect to the top 100 list. In the last few days I've been listening constantly to Fripp's & Sylvian's "Damage" (new in my collection) and having a great time. If I was purchasing according to the list solely I would never reach this one cause it's not well known. One should know what he likes, use the downloadable mp3 and then maybe also concider the list to pick his choices. If not so, one would be disappointed frequently.

Still, there should be a technical way to prevent reviews without text.

Oh, and I remember some of Geeer's posts. The man can write !

W.Chuck wrote: I know...I hate those reviews, they just ruin the true result, so they shouldn't be counted anymore and so I think they can be removed.

What true results?

you mean those rather untrustworthy list made of whatever few reviews are available? Only true results would be if every album was receiving the same amount of review.

Stop paying attention to those useless and tampered-with lists. Read the reviews , not the ratings, to find out for new bands. and stop wanting to make your favorite albums be up on those lists. Nothing more useless than that.

This being said, this Tam Tam character has been giving many 5* ratings too and just as undiservingly. Look at his ratings in Family.

1. If ratings without reviews are outlawed, then it have to be all of them regardless of value (1 - 5).
2. I already did some research about the effect of these ratings on the chart positions several months ago ... it showed that the effect is only marginal.

Sean Trane wrote: W.Chuck wrote: I know...I hate those reviews, they just ruin the true result, so they shouldn't be counted anymore and so I think they can be removed.   What true results? you mean those rather untrustworthy list made of whatever few reviews are available? Only true results would be if every album was receiving the same amount of review.   Stop paying attention to those useless and tampered-with lists. Read the reviews , not the ratings, to find out for new bands. and stop wanting to make your favorite albums be up on those lists. Nothing more useless than that. This being said, this Tam Tam character has been giving many 5* ratings too and just as undiservingly. Look at his ratings in Family.

I dont think it's really about the lists.  a rating is a good way to judge the general opinion one's PA peers have of a certain album if you were considering it for purchase.  there are albums that don't have many reviews, so random one star or five star ratings without explanations don't really help you learn about the album. 

Tony R wrote: As part of the next update for Prog Archives all who wish to review will have to become members first.It wont stop TamM Tam and his ilk altogether but at least we will be able to contact them and admonish them if necessary.

That's somewhat reassuring, but people like tamtam have already submitted so many reviews all without text that completely destroy an album's score. Yes...the score does influence a person, as does the review. If tamtam submitted a good review, it'd be fine, although I'd strongly disagree. So...yes, making people sign up will stop plenty of people who just want to bloat or destroy a score, but completely getting rid of wordless reviews would do it better. What would YOU rather do: sign up for a site (undesirable, but whatever), or write a 300 word review (hell no!)?

W.Chuck wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: I already did some research about the effect of these ratings on the chart positions several months ago ... it showed that the effect is only marginal. I also looked sometimes and the effect I noticed was more than just marginal, sometimes there was a difference of 1.00-2.00 !

I think I'm gonna check this out as well for major albums as well as some minor ones and see the difference. Then if I'm bored enough, I'll post it here for all you guys to see...maybe that'll help?

Another idea...then I'm probably gonna go calculate some scores. You could split scores into a score for reviews without text and a score for reviews with text.

FishyMonkey wrote: W.Chuck wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: I already did some research about the effect of these ratings on the chart positions several months ago ... it showed that the effect is only marginal. I also looked sometimes and the effect I noticed was more than just marginal, sometimes there was a difference of 1.00-2.00 ! I think I'm gonna check this out as well for major albums as well as some minor ones and see the difference. Then if I'm bored enough, I'll post it here for all you guys to see...maybe that'll help?

Check out my calculations:

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10291 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10291

The problem is that some people's whose opinion I DO value...such as Velvetclown for example...have textless reviews. It is a shame that some people abuse this, but one must realize that not everyone is comfortable with their own writing skills to submit full length reviews...or simply do not have the time, but still have an opinion.

I think Tony R's solution is a good one and if you guys think that a certain member is abusing it then you can hold him accountable.

Eh. It's just ratings, I guess. Just read the reviews and forget about averages. We could just remove the average scores, btw.

Nobody came to this before?

Yep, ratings without a review should go (probably said this a thousand times by now). By the way check this out:

RICK WAKEMAN "The Burning (Film Soundtrack)" ratings
(ratings only or wih reviews of 200 or less characters)

Rating by René Debot @ 10:35:15 AM EST, 2/18/2004

Rating by Gorgorone! @ 9:32:18 AM EST, 10/22/2005

Rating by Dirty Mouth @ 4:15:33 AM EST, 10/23/2005

Rating by Girella @ 1:30:52 PM EST, 10/24/2005

Rating by Goroggo @ 9:52:40 AM EST, 10/25/2005

Rating by jijjo @ 3:51:15 PM EST, 10/25/2005

Rating by Oppola @ 2:57:06 PM EST, 10/28/2005

Rating by Lord Shamino Salle Dacil @ 9:12:48 PM EST, 11/1/2005

Rating by Oasdom! @ 12:38:41 PM EST, 11/2/2005

That's quite mean

Pafnutij wrote: Yep, ratings without a review should go (probably said this a thousand times by now). By the way check this out: RICK WAKEMAN "The Burning (Film Soundtrack)" ratings (ratings only or wih reviews of 200 or less characters) Rating by René Debot @ 10:35:15 AM EST, 2/18/2004 Rating by Gorgorone! @ 9:32:18 AM EST, 10/22/2005 Rating by Dirty Mouth @ 4:15:33 AM EST, 10/23/2005 Rating by Girella @ 1:30:52 PM EST, 10/24/2005 Rating by Goroggo @ 9:52:40 AM EST, 10/25/2005 Rating by jijjo @ 3:51:15 PM EST, 10/25/2005 Rating by Oppola @ 2:57:06 PM EST, 10/28/2005 Rating by Lord Shamino Salle Dacil @ 9:12:48 PM EST, 11/1/2005 Rating by Oasdom! @ 12:38:41 PM EST, 11/2/2005 That's quite mean

Perfect example of a total abuse.

From Wakeman's official website:

I don't believe there is evidence of "abuse" in the ratings here.

There is a really simple explanation for why there might be more negative ratings without reviews than positive ones:

People don't bother to go to great lengths to describe why they DON'T like an album. I recently did a 2 star review, and I remember that it was a painfull process because it required me to listen to the whole album again in order to exactly explain why I don't like it.

I'm all for a radical treatment concerning these corrupted ratings!

Pafnutij wrote: Yep, ratings without a review should go (probably said this a thousand times by now). By the way check this out: RICK WAKEMAN "The Burning (Film Soundtrack)" ratings (ratings only or wih reviews of 200 or less characters) Rating by René Debot @ 10:35:15 AM EST, 2/18/2004 Rating by Gorgorone! @ 9:32:18 AM EST, 10/22/2005 Rating by Dirty Mouth @ 4:15:33 AM EST, 10/23/2005 Rating by Girella @ 1:30:52 PM EST, 10/24/2005 Rating by Goroggo @ 9:52:40 AM EST, 10/25/2005 Rating by jijjo @ 3:51:15 PM EST, 10/25/2005 Rating by Oppola @ 2:57:06 PM EST, 10/28/2005 Rating by Lord Shamino Salle Dacil @ 9:12:48 PM EST, 11/1/2005 Rating by Oasdom! @ 12:38:41 PM EST, 11/2/2005 That's quite mean

The first one by Rene Debot is not a fake or without text review. He was among the very first collabs named by mailto:M@X - M@X , but he got demoted for lack of participation in over two years now. Maybe his review is less than 50 words.

As for the ratings on Wakeman, most of his albums are at best worthy of two stars except for 6 wives.

The man with the stardust sprinkled cape and his stupid Rock On Ice Tour are really the main cause for Prog's bed name.

Sean Trane wrote: Pafnutij wrote: Yep, ratings without a review should go (probably said this a thousand times by now). By the way check this out: RICK WAKEMAN "The Burning (Film Soundtrack)" ratings (ratings only or wih reviews of 200 or less characters) Rating by René Debot @ 10:35:15 AM EST, 2/18/2004 Rating by Gorgorone! @ 9:32:18 AM EST, 10/22/2005 Rating by Dirty Mouth @ 4:15:33 AM EST, 10/23/2005 Rating by Girella @ 1:30:52 PM EST, 10/24/2005 Rating by Goroggo @ 9:52:40 AM EST, 10/25/2005 Rating by jijjo @ 3:51:15 PM EST, 10/25/2005 Rating by Oppola @ 2:57:06 PM EST, 10/28/2005 Rating by Lord Shamino Salle Dacil @ 9:12:48 PM EST, 11/1/2005 Rating by Oasdom! @ 12:38:41 PM EST, 11/2/2005 That's quite mean The first one by Rene Debot is not a fake or without text review. He was among the very first collabs named by mailto:M@X - M@X , but he got demoted for lack of participation in over two years now. Maybe his review is less than 50 words.   As for the ratings on Wakeman, most of his albums are at best worthy of two stars except for 6 wives. The man with the stardust sprinkled cape and his stupid Rock On Ice Tour are really the main cause for Prog's bed name.

Its interesting if you have a look at the datesof those reviews, from Gorgorone down....a day apart each time... I'm not saying I smell a rat, but certainly a large mouse...it could be that the email addresses have a pattern, and that one or two people with too much time on their hands had it in for Rick Wakeman...(have you checked his other solo works??)

yeah, it's as I thought...the above are all:

• Italian hotmail addresses
• All give ratings to the same albums
• Are all rated either 1 or 5 (with a couple of 2's thrown in for good measure)
• All rated on the same day, for each 'member'

I'll have a word with Bob about this one; its clearly been done to bias the ratings...

fandango wrote: Sean Trane wrote: The first one by Rene Debot is not a fake or without text review. He was among the very first collabs named by mailto:M@X - M@X , but he got demoted for lack of participation in over two years now. Maybe his review is less than 50 words.   As for the ratings on Wakeman, most of his albums are at best worthy of two stars except for 6 wives. Its interesting if you have a look at the datesof those reviews, from Gorgorone down....a day apart each time... I'm not saying I smell a rat, but certainly a large mouse...it could be that the email addresses have a pattern, and that one or two people with too much time on their hands had it in for Rick Wakeman...(have you checked his other solo works??)

I think you might have a point, the dates are grouped a little too close together to be truthfully legitimate.

But let's think about how sick a man can be about inventing everytime a new identity just to rate badly a few Wakeman albums

This guy must not have a life at all

Even I do not hate Wakeman that much to want to give a completely uninteresting album a ratinglet alone a review - this would have to mean i would have to ren,t it first and waste my precious time on it

There are other checks in place such as the IP address to minimise multiple ratings. I have to ask though, why would anyone want to manipulate the ratings for this album.

The answer to the ratings without reviews lies with how the site treats them for influence on average ratings, charts etc. I don't try to moderate the ratings given with reviews, and I adopt the same policy for ratings without reviews. Only if there is a clear abuse such as 50 one star ratings and one five star rating for the top 50 albums would I feel intervention is warranted. As it stands at the moment, the site accepts ratings without reviews. We must therefore assume that the ratings given have been arrived at honestly.