Ever read a review from a reviewer and thought to yourself , thats completely untrue ?  my idea is a simple one, Just like at Amazon.com why doesn`t Prog Archives add a "was this review helpful to you" Yes or No,  that way readers could get a more accurate idea if the review they are reading is Bogus or not ? 

It would also serve as an incentive device as people I believe would like to see first hand how well received their review has been.   

Pros : increase the quality of reviews

       : increase the quantiy of reviews (by adding a inbuilt reward system)

       : Improve the integrity of the reviews

Cons : Nothing I can think of 

W.Chuck wrote: yeah sounds good, I think it's not hard to set up.

The difficult part is preventing abuse. You need to make sure that a person can only vote once.

W.Chuck wrote: hmm, amazon handles this problem with usernames

Not correct. They use user accounts which are verified by an email roundtrip.

Disagree strongly.

The amazon "helpful" system is a complete joke. People award helpful votes to reviews that they agree with and vote that the ones they don't agree with are unhelpful.  There are numerous well-researched, thorough, well-written, passionate amazon reviews that are riddled with unhelpful votes because they were attacked by proponents of the book/CD/movie who don't like dissenting opinions. 

Please don't let that happen here.  Unhelpful reviews take care of themselves -- they're usually poorly-worded and/or short, and are often one-shot deals by people who don't write many reviews.      

I agree with Yargh.

However I feel strongly that all potential reviewers should have to register with the site before being allowed to post a review.Email verification should be mandatory.

I've trawled through umpteen pages of reviews and Ratings Without Reviews today and we are having the piss taken out of us big style by every mischievous muppet that lands here with a few minutes to kill.

If you check through Ratings Without Reviews on this site I would guess that 2/3 s award either a one star or five star rating,with nothing to substantiate this at all. 50% of the email addresses provided by these jokers are not valid addresses.

Then we have advertisers (!!) hijacking the system posting 1 star ratings and a short "message":

Rating by Lawn and Landscaping - to cut lawn - there is nothing easier! @ 11:45:26 AM EST, 1/27/2006

Rating by Tex Com Poker @ 9:28:44 AM EST, 1/28/2006

Rating by Shaved X @ 8:04:38 PM EST, 1/28/2006

Rating by The site about game in poker and all that with it is connected. @ 8:40:07 PM EST, 1/28/2006

Rating by European Porn Videos @ 8:15:50 AM EST, 1/29/2006

Rating by Popular games and the more of fun, and great victories, all this waits for you on ours online a site. @ 3:53:41 PM EST, 1/30/2006

Rating by Toys for your favourite children. @ 3:59:47 PM EST, 1/30/2006

This has got to stop and I have contacted mailto:M@x - M@x with a view to immediate action being taken

Ok,rating without reviews has been suspended.

Tony R wrote: Ok,rating without reviews has been suspended.

Oh cool, lets see what happens

W.Chuck wrote: Well...good so far, but the ratings are still the same

I don't know if the old ratings without reviews are not counted.

But even if they are not counted, don't expect a dramatic change in albums with a lot of reviews like Close to the Edge, Selling England by the Pound or any top 10, because the number of reviews is so high that you would have to eliminate at least 30 of the total number to really change dramaticly the average (1 star up or down), mainly because among the RWR there's a high percentage of raters that voted for the average rating.

The difference will be easier to find in albums with few reviews, because in this case ratings without reviews can even represent 50%.

But it's a very good starting point, in a few weeks we will start to notice changes, first subtle then more and more clear.

Iván

Tony R wrote: Ok,rating without reviews has been suspended.

Allright! Now it's the time to delete all the existing ratings without reviews, exept those made by the collaborators. It would add a lot to the quality and credibility of this site.

Baza wrote: Tony R wrote: Ok,rating without reviews has been suspended. Allright! Now it's the time to delete all the existing ratings without reviews, exept those made by the collaborators. It would add a lot to the quality and credibility of this site.

Why whould you exempt rating without review made by collaborators from deletion??? Is it collaborators privilege to make unsupported claims and judgements; or is it just your sheer confidence in collaborators opinions and complete trust in whatever they might state??? 

eugene wrote: Baza wrote: Tony R wrote: Ok,rating without reviews has been suspended. Allright! Now it's the time to delete all the existing ratings without reviews, exept those made by the collaborators. It would add a lot to the quality and credibility of this site.   Why whould you exempt rating without review made by collaborators from deletion??? Is it collaborators privilege to make unsupported claims and judgements; or is it just your sheer confidence in collaborators opinions and complete trust in whatever they might state???

The second thing

Baza wrote: eugene wrote: Baza wrote: Tony R wrote: Ok,rating without reviews has been suspended. Allright! Now it's the time to delete all the existing ratings without reviews, exept those made by the collaborators. It would add a lot to the quality and credibility of this site.   Why whould you exempt rating without review made by collaborators from deletion??? Is it collaborators privilege to make unsupported claims and judgements; or is it just your sheer confidence in collaborators opinions and complete trust in whatever they might state???  The second thing

OK then, good for you. But I'd rather all ratings without review to be deleted, as I know for sure that certain collaborators opinions are completely opposite to my personal tastes and likings, and their rating can be only grossly misleading.

So the rule "no rating without review" should apply to everybody with no exemption.

Tony R wrote: Ok,rating without reviews has been suspended.

Wow, finally

eugene wrote: Baza wrote: eugene wrote: Baza wrote: Tony R wrote: Ok,rating without reviews has been suspended. Allright! Now it's the time to delete all the existing ratings without reviews, exept those made by the collaborators. It would add a lot to the quality and credibility of this site.   Why whould you exempt rating without review made by collaborators from deletion??? Is it collaborators privilege to make unsupported claims and judgements; or is it just your sheer confidence in collaborators opinions and complete trust in whatever they might state???  The second thing OK then, good for you. But I'd rather all ratings without review to be deleted, as I know for sure that certain collaborators opinions are completely opposite to my personal tastes and likings, and their rating can be only grossly misleading. So the rule "no rating without review" should apply to everybody with no exemption.

Well, everyone has their own taste, and you have to accept everyone's opinions. You can't say that a particular rating is misleading just because you have a different opinion on that album. The reason why I think that their reviews without ratings should be accepted is because the collaborators are (or at least, supposed to be) people who have more knowledge in prog than others and they also are more mature in their approach to music. For example, the guy who has the biggest number of ratings here (over 1500), Sean Trane, has some ratings without reviews. I think that it would be a pity if those ratings would be lost.

 But, so far, no one said that those ratings would be deleted. They were deleted from the album's reviews pages, but they still are added to the calculation of the average score.

Baza wrote: eugene wrote: Baza wrote: eugene wrote: Baza wrote: Tony R wrote: Ok,rating without reviews has been suspended. Allright! Now it's the time to delete all the existing ratings without reviews, exept those made by the collaborators. It would add a lot to the quality and credibility of this site.   Why whould you exempt rating without review made by collaborators from deletion??? Is it collaborators privilege to make unsupported claims and judgements; or is it just your sheer confidence in collaborators opinions and complete trust in whatever they might state???  The second thing OK then, good for you. But I'd rather all ratings without review to be deleted, as I know for sure that certain collaborators opinions are completely opposite to my personal tastes and likings, and their rating can be only grossly misleading. So the rule "no rating without review" should apply to everybody with no exemption.   Well, everyone has their own taste, and you have to accept everyone's opinions. You can't say that a particular rating is misleading just because you have a different opinion on that album. The reason why I think that their reviews without ratings should be accepted is because the collaborators are (or at least, supposed to be) people who have more knowledge in prog than others and they also are more mature in their approach to music. For example, the guy who has the biggest number of ratings here (over 1500), Sean Trane, has some ratings without reviews. I think that it would be a pity if those ratings would be lost.  But, so far, no one said that those ratings would be deleted. They were deleted from the album's reviews pages, but they still are added to the calculation of the average score.

"Everyone has own opinion" - it's quite obvious and undisputable, matter of fact really.

I do not, by any means, have to accept anyone's opinion - I just must admit that everyone's entitled to it's own. 

Collaborators are not necessarily more mature in their approach to music than any other person could be, neither they must have more knowledge than the others might have about particular subgenres of prog. And this is exactly my reason why any repeat any rating without review should not be acceptable.

As to Mr. Chantraine, with all due respect - judging from his numerous reviews I can conclude that his musical tastes and preferences are different from mine, however I enjoy reading his reviews and without any doubts he contributes a lot to my general knowledge in music. But why he, in particular, should be allowed to rate without review, as long as we like his reviews, no matter whether we agree with what he is saying there or not.

I can clearly remember one case when I abstained from buying Inquire's album Melancholia because I saw this album rated with one star here. This stupid rating was given without review. It was my mistake to trust rating without review, as Melancholia is actually absolutely great album, which I purchased later and enjoy it very much. Just imagine if person giving it 1 star could be kind enough to support it by at least short review saying for example: "I give this sh*t only one star because it's got nothing in common with Motorhead or Manowar. Avoid! Long Live Heavy Metal!!!" Well, in this case I would buy this album.

With all due respect towards great job collaborators are doing for this site, I still would not like any of them to give unsupported ratings.