I did the same exact thing LOL! ....... Of course I wouldn't expect anyone to take my review seriously after that, I was clearly not qualified LOL.

 

 

True, but I just can't get past the error. To me, it taints everything else they have written. I am certainly NOT saying I don't make mistakes. Actually, it's probably a mistake to dismiss an entire review because of one error, so there ya go!

 

 

Personally I've chosen to not write reviews myself. I believe only a few among the many truly possess a natural ability for it, knowing what's true and what's not, and so many more leave me thinking they are dumb or ignorant.

 

Where I come from to call someone ignorant is pretty rude.

 

I'm sorry, I meant it in the sense of "someone who doesn't know the facts is ignorant of the facts", not as a personal attack. I will consider changing it, how would you word it?

 

 

 

I think coupled with the little red angry smiley, it did come across as a little harsh. 

 

How I stand on it:  well, I read the review anyway.  Even if the facts are wrong, how the audio affects the person and their opinions thereon are still valid.  I might have a giggle depending on how glaring the error (like a Paatos reviewer in Sweden who stated that Brian Wilson had produced "Kallocain" instead of Steven Wilson.) 

 

But if one is interested in opinions, why not read them, even if a tad inaccurate?

 

We all have made the odd gaff that would regulate us to psueds corner at sometime.

 

A creative review, giving your opinion in an interesting way, well, that's another matter.... machines still can't do it by themselves....

 

So, I tend to let go factual errors if thew review is interesting, well written or at least in a style that entertains me and informs me of the feeling the reviewer got after listening to an album... If I want 100% true facts, I won't be "ignorant" enough to look them in subjective reviews... there are other places to do that... Of course, if the facts contained in a review are accurate, that's even better... but I won't dismiss a review just because it commits the crime of saying an album preceded one when it actually was released after it....

 

I called Kayo Dot post-metal and called their music atrocious... The first statement was completely wrong... I called Agalloch's music black metal and boring... both staements were kind of wrong........ But I think those two are some of my most entertaining reviews.... The same goes with a LOT of reviews by fellow reviewers who write interesting, compelling-to-read little essays.... But, of course, there are many, MANY more that are good and ALSO accurate.... so, in a universe of thousands and thousands of reviews, complaining about some that show "ignorance" seems to me, well....to use a word much despised here, "pretentious".

 

 

"Uninformed" is good. I have changed the title to that. Thanks.

 

 

I think you misunderstand me. I am not "putting down" the reviewer who makes a mistake. Goodness knows, I've made enough. What I am saying is that reviews with factual mistakes tend to make me dismiss the entire review and I am asking how others feel when they run across a review like that. I accept that my original title may have sounded harsh and I have changed it to something better.

 

 

 

Thanks!

 

Again, I think you misunderstand me. I am not complaining about the inaccurate reviews, I am asking how people judge their merit.

 

 

Thanks MIcky. Unfortunately I misplaced my frisky girlfriend a while back!

 

 

 

I'll ignore some factual errors if they are minor. I find the best thing to do with a situation like your example (i.e. unsure of the date of other material), is to say it reminds me of it (that has spared me a few embarassments). I don't always run my review through spell-check, or at least I didn't until I got promoted, and now I'm updating some of my more grammatacilly atrocious reviews. Personally, I find the highly subjective claims that aren't backed up (it's okay to for people to say they think DT is the best prog band of the new millenium, but for the love of God at least devote a sentence to why you think that). In the end, I feel that the setup of having collabs' and prog reviewers' reviews first is beneficial because we tend to check our stuff, and good non collabs are usually quickly spotted and promoted.

 

Actually, I'm not really concerned about the review itself, but rather how people feel about it, but thanks for the suggestion!

 

 

I try to inform this situation in the reviews I've done for Jethro Tull, Yes, Genesis and ELP (for the case of Brazil, indeed). Here, the 2 first JT albums were released after Living In The Past and the 2 first Yes albums were released after Yessongs. Genesis' Trespass was released after The Lamb, etc, etc.

 

Good point, but I think if someone is going to write a review of "Trespass", then where it fits in the Genesis discography and how it relates to the general prog time-line is 'must-know" information. If you read a review of "Trespass" in which the reviewer expresses the opinion that Genesis took a step backward by recording an album like that AFTER having recorded "The Lamb..", then wouldn't that make you tend to dismiss the rest of the review as irrelevant?

 

 

 

Those cases I spotted were really extremes (and after all one could find the release year, say 1975 and the production year, 1970, in the back cover). But some other cases could be disturbing: Floyd's "Atom..." and "Meddle" were released together (both in 1972), only a few months before DSOTM. Some distracted reviewer may confuse things here; but the recommendation is to check first the discography displayed in the band's page.

 

Thanks for that,and for not taking my post personally.