The main argument was, not literally, but very close: search for democracy somewhere else.

 

I think collaborators, if they are not obsessed with megalomania, should feel themselves a little uncomfortable.

 

Simply because each collab's review is not necassarily better than others.

 

The only thing I like in collab status is the possibility to edit my own reviews.

I don't need any other rewards. Especially heavier rating, I'm far from thinking that I'm smarter than other PA members.

 

Tha's why I always take the time to make long reviews, almost none less than 500 words.

 

Making a review takes me 1 or 2  hours in average, rating takes me 5 seconds, it would be easier to rate more and review less if it mattered at all.

 

Iván

 

Does anyone agree all Morrison era of The Doors is too bad (1.69)?

 

Depends in how you look at it, I believe that's not a Morrison era album, that's a label compilation for no other purpose than making bucks.

 

There are already enough Doors compilations, if people want the real deal get the studio albums.

 

Maybe too low, but I wouldn't give more than 2, maybe  3 stars to that attemp of sacking our pockets.

 

Iván

 

Following to your logic, everything is making bucks: remasters, new formats (like SACD, DVD-A, BluRay etc).

 

Read my reviews, except a couple, I always rate compilations very low, I believe the music must be listened in the way the artist recorded it.

 

I never buy remasters or SACD, not even new copies of DVD's, if I already have something I don't waste my money, there's too much new stuff to be listened.

 

I even refuse to buy BluRay, being that most of the concerts I buy are not recorded in great quality.

 

I have already most of Doors albums and 4 compilations, why buy more?.

 

Iván

 

IMO it's noncense when separate albums are rated from 2.66 to 4.39, and at the same time all these albums together, with bonus tracks, surround sound etc have rating lower than 2 stars. Only because some collaborator's voice is so heavy.

 

Good one Yorkie, never been one to flinch eh?

 

Your reviews do matter......believe it, and the more the merrier please. Ratings IMO are ' weightless' unless say a new artist has been added ( in the hope that said raters return soon and replace said rating with a review)

 

Rating :

< id=irate =..hRatue.value=.value;checkFiveStars; = value=5 name=irate> Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music

< id=irate =..hRatue.value=.value; = value=4 name=irate> Excellent addition to any prog music collection

< id=irate =..hRatue.value=.value; = value=3 name=irate> Good, but non-essential

< id=irate =..hRatue.value=.value; = value=2 name=irate> Collectors/fans only

< id=irate =..hRatue.value=.value; = value=1 name=irate> Poor. Only for completionists

 

At least in my mind this is not necessarily a straight 1 to 5 ranking with 1 being worst and 5 being best.  It is meant to hopefully fit into a prog fans mindset.  Of course this isn't entirely fair either since us prog fans are all over the map from extreme prog metal to RIO/Avant to Zeuhl to Electronic to Crossover fans.  So taken within the context of a genre or a particular band a 5 star rating would make sense for a band's very best album or albums.  Even within a prog sub genre this might make sense.  Not only is an album the band's best, it is also a masterpiece within its subgenre.  Where the problem comes in is when you then take in prog music as a whole.  Is an album not only the band's best, and a masterpiece of its genre, but is it also a masterpiece of prog.  Is it an album that is going to appeal to the wide spectrum of prog fans?  I honestly feel that in the grand scheme of things there are very few of those that would fit that bill. But look at that you now have level 4 star which is an album that is not a masterpiece, but it is essential for any prog collection.  Hmmmm.  How big of a difference is there between a 4 star and a 5 star?  How can an album be essential but not be a masterpiece?  Then you get to 3 star which is good but not essential.  In my opinion most prog albums fall within this category.  Which makes sense from both an averaging standpoint as well as the fact that if everything were essential then the meaning of essential would be extremely diluted and thus rendered worthless.  The two star rating is meant to apply to collectors/fans only.  For me this is where compilations come in to play, and where it also gets quite tricky and you can kind of see from my reviews of compilations what I mean by this.  The music itself might be 4 or 5 star material especially to someone who is new to a band.  On the other hand, to someone who already has all of a bands albums, a compilation album is really only for a fan/collector who must have everything ever released by that particular band.  Thus the 2-star might be deemed as an insult, and maybe in a way it is, but it is also truly a fair rating because once you have all of a band's albums is it really necessary to have a new compilation album.  This same 2-star discussion also applies to 1 star reviews.  Poor.  Only for completionists.  Whereas a good compiliation might generate a 2 star, or even at best a 3 star ranking, a bad compilation should almost always receive a 1 star ranking.  Truly only a completionist would want it.  For me at least this also gets tricky within what I might consider to be a band's worst albums.  If I personally don't like an album and I am a fan of the band, then maybe that deserves a 1 star rating.  If I am not a fan of the band and I don't like the music is it fair for me to give it a 1 star?  Should I really be giving it a 2 star which says that it is for collectors/fans only?  What is the difference between a collector and a completionist?  I know that the ratings are based on personal feelings, but how can I say that an album is poor and only for completionists when the band's fans are giving the album 4 or 5 stars.  If this is the case, then the album will most likely get a 2 star rating from me, which means that it is for fans of the band.  This 2 star might seem like an insult and I suppose again it might even be one, but it essentially is my way of saying that I don't like the album but if you are a fan of the band you might/will like it.  And one last thing which really grinds me with this sites reviews.  A prog-related or proto-prog band's album should absolutely never ever receive a 5 star review.  How in the hell can a non-prog album be a masterpiece of prog?  It is impossible.  If it is a masterpiece of prog than that band had better damn well be moved from proto-prog or prog-related to a full prog genre.

 

What was the point of this lengthy rant.  The point was that the ratings don't mean anything.  For 1, very few seem to follow the guidelines anyways.  For 2, there really aren't too many bright lines between the various star rankings.  Masterpiece vs essential.  Collectors vs completionists.  The star ranking really means nothing without the substance of the review which explains what the star ranking means to that individual reviewer. 

 

As far as the collabs and reviewers rankings getting higher weightings than non-collabs and reviewers this has been explained already by others but essentially the main idea behind it is as has been said generally collabs and reviewers have "earned" these titles by helping out on the site and hopefully writing reviews that are essentially unbiased and thus useful to the reader of the review.  This isn't to say that there aren't poorly written reviews by reviewers and collabs and excellently written reviews by noncollabs and nonreviewers.  Some people and reviewers fall through the cracks or aren't highly visible within the forum setting but I think that generally those nonreviewers/collabs who write a number of good reviews will be noticed by the admins or collabs or reviewers and they will get promoted to the reviewer and collab level.  As has been said this is a volunteer site and those that show the most willingness to volunteer and help out are almost always accepted with open arms to continue the volunteering and helping out. 

 

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 accepted should be a MINIMUM 100 words preferably substantially more, no maximum.

2 - While ratings without reviews are accepted, you are strongly encouraged to write a review to support your rating.

3 - Feel free to review as many discs as you like, and to construct your reviews in whatever way you wish. (Tip, to start a new paragraph in your review, put <p> at the end of the previous paragraph.)

4 - Write in an intelligent and considerate manner. Rude or insulting language (including blatant vulgarity) will not be tolerated! Show respect for other reviewers, readers, the artists, and the CD and song titles. Do not belittle reviews posted by others, their opinions are as welcome and valid as yours. It is generally best to avoid commenting on other reviews altogether.

The following are examples of phrases which should NOT appear in reviews: "Reviewer Joe Smith is stupid for saying that...", "Anyone who doesn't like this album is an idiot", "The band which made this album is rubbish", etc.,

5 - Do not voice general opinions on matters such as whether a band/album/sub-genre should be included in the site, whether you agree with the star rating system, etc.. Such matters should be discussed in the forum. Keep the review pertinent to the specific album concerned. The reviews section is NOT the place for initiating or prolonging a debate.

6 - Try to write reviews that will be of real use and interest to other progressive music fans, who can benefit by finding new avenues for their musical exploration. Consider aspects which will be of interest to the reader such as the style of music, notable influences, similar bands, best tracks (don’t just say "this album is brilliant", explain what you like about it), production quality, musicians involved, album history, We suggest you listen to an album several times before writing a review. It can take a number of listens to Prog albums in particular to begin to appreciate the music.

7 - Remember that your reviews will be on the relevant album’s page for all to read for many years to come. Do not therefore word your review with only the front page (which shows the latest reviews) in mind. Consider whether the review will still make sense in 5 years time and more.

8 - Before assigning a star rating to an album, you should ensure you understand what the differing numbers of stars mean. Please use "one" and "five star" ratings very sparingly -- most albums you dislike will have at least some positive qualities, and not every album that you enjoy will be a perfect "masterpiece of prog".

9 - When quoting from elsewhere, ensure due credit is clearly given. Do not copy reviews or text from other sources and attempt to pass them off as your own.

10 - Any impersonation of another reviewer will be treated as an abuse of the Prog Archives site, and the offender will be barred from further use of the site.

THESE GUIDELINES are designed to help you to help us build a comprehensive reference of progressive rock (and related) recordings. By posting a review, you are indicating your acceptance of the guidelines, and undertaking to abide by them.

A special THANKS from Prog Archives to all those who submit reviews!

 

Cheers

 

Scott

 

1st off, thank you for your response.  A good point that you made is the ability to get to know reviewers and their tastes.  Obviously that takes time from the person who is reading reviews to get to know all of the reviewers.  But by reading the reviews on an album that you are interested in, if you read a review that intrigues you, you can always go to that reviewers list of reviews and see how their taste matches yours on albums that you have in common.  Something that is not entirely necessary because a really good review should tell you what you need to know.  I think that this is a process that most of us regulars have gone through to an extent over time.  By reading reviews and getting to know people in the forums I think that we get a pretty good idea of people whose tastes are similar and those whose tastes we would like to avoid. 

 

I agree that those with reviewer/collab status reviews should be at least good quality and should be held to a higher standard.  Generally, the thread for reporting reviews that don't meet the sites guidelines includes reviews by newbies to the site, who are contacted by the admins and encouraged to improve their reviews/given suggestions for improving their reviews.  But I think that this same should apply even more so for collabs and reviewers.  Certainly, if someone who holds these titles is writing reviews that don't meet the site's guidelines then they should be kindly approached and encouraged to adjust their reviews appropriately.  I suspect that this is already done to the extent that bad reviews are noticed and reported.  And of course if they continue to write bad reviews then a demotion might be in order.  Obviously, this kind of a decision made by admins on a facts and circumstances basis.

 

I should mention I don't have any problem with rating albums without reviews.  I agree that they generally don't deserve the same weighting as a rating with a review but they can still be helpful.  Especially when done by somebody whose tastes that you have gotten to know.  In my case, I have only written about 25 reviews here.  I think that some are pretty good, and even entertaining reading, but most are probably pretty drab.  On Mike's http://www.progfreak.com - www.progfreak.com site, I have rated about 700 albums but most without reviews.  I could and maybe I should probably do the same thing here on PA.  Add my ratings now, and eventually get around to writing a review that supports the rating, rather than not having any ratings because I don't have a good enough feel on an album to write a review, or the review writing muse hasn't struck yet.  At least for now, I use Mike's site to get the rating bug out of the way with the thought that someday a review will come to mind and make its way to this site.

That is indeed an unfortunate (and extreme) example. It's common knowledge that many prog fans do not like anthologies and will rate box-sets and Best of... collections accordingly. The observation that it is for collectors or completest only in itself is not without merit - I cannot imagine that a casual buyer with no knowledge of the Doors would buy it on spec and there are probably less expensive ways to get an introduction to their music, or more essential studio albums to buy first. Yet a review of the compilation for it's artistic value is equally valid and there is nothing wrong in reflecting that in the review and the rating and is of great value to someone who owns some of the material and is considering buying the full-set. In both cases the reason for the rating could be deduced from the review content. Regardless of the weighting, or even the ratings - the content of both reviews when read together I feel give a better understanding and impression of the set than just one alone... and that's the real power of the PA's reviews (certainly not the average rating) - you get the real picture and the real balance by reading all the reviews (well, as many as is practical) for an album - counter a 5* review with a 1* review to see the contrasting opinion the album can impart on two different people. Another thing I would recommend when reading "extreme" reviews is to check-out the reviewer's other reviews to get an impression of the person's likes and dislikes.

 

For the paltry few reviews I've written to date, my collab weighting hasn't made that much difference to the overall tally in each case.

 

(However, knowing that my review will carry a higher weight does compel me to write better, even if I don't have the natural reviewing talent to pull it off )

 

ps: Yorkie - its outrages! or it's outrageous? ... not important, just curious.

 

I was adding a band (After months posting for several weeks in the Collaborators section and the team authorizing the addition), it took me hours to add the band and the albums.

 

When I finished adding the last album and making a review, a guy who is not a Colaborator and normally rates everything except Pink Floyd very low had rated without any review or explanation, the album I was about to post with 1 star

 

Similar cases where the reason why the weight of the ratings was changed, there was no way to ask this guy why he rated the album so low or retire the rating, because a RWR doesn't need explanation, but if a Prog Reviewer did that, he would be contacted by the Adms, especuially if he rates only one band 5 stars and the rest very low.

 

Honestly, I felt frustrated, all that work and  a guy who probably never heard the album and was only lurking which band was being added threw it down so his beloved Pink Floyd was kept always at the top.

 

BTW: I do believe all the reviews should be shown, but maybe it will take too much bandwith.

 

Iván

 

 

 

I already told it, I don't want my voice to be heavy. I only don't like when someone's not well-thought voice is heavier than mine (The Doors reviews example).

 

And Ivan, I have the feeling that you are, not intentionally, lying to yourself. There is almost no sacrifice, we are here only because we love music, because it is interesting for us. We do it because we like to do it, isn't it? Though I agree that when you are working in a team you have some obligations, but I can't call it sacrifice.

 

 

To lower the degree of this discussion, I started kinda "Thank you" thread: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=51719 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=51719

Hope it will be supported by progheads.

 

 

Thanks Debrewguy, your post made me write my first Ange review, I started with Guet-Apens and will continue with the rest.

 

Yes, I believe they deserve more recognition, despite being so weird.

 

Iván

 

I disagree and have to stand up and defend that review.

 

I've just read it and I realize is a review from a GREATEST HITS COLLECTION. As such, the review (what it says) is commenting mostly in the fact that is huge and enormous and pricey. As it clearly says, it's actually easier to buy only the 6 albums.

 

We're talking a greatest hits collection here. Those kinds of collection are usually ways to take money from customers selling them lots of useless garbage. I don't see ANY negative comment about the music in that review. He's reviewing the collection. And I agree. And would give it one star if I had the thing because is just a rip-off.

 

I have given 1 stars to two greatest hits collection, and one by my FAVORITE band, so it's not really the music. In that case, it was because the song selection was atrocious. I never intended that to be a comment on the band's career, as it would be stupid to give 1 star to DT's career and then say that they're mny favporite band. It's the same case here.

 

So I think that review is unfairly treated here.,

 

And I also think that weighed ratings exist and it's good that they do.

 

I agree, it makes me remember:

 

Classic Yes

 

Yesyears

 

Yesstory

 

The Very Best of Yes

 

The Best of Yes

 

Yes Today

 

In A Word

 

The Ultimate Yes

 

Topography - The Yes Anthology

 

The Solid Gold Collection

 

One more for the members to pick up some royalties

 

 

And one for DJ The Verfe (Virgil Howe, Steve's son) to play

 

Yes Re-Mixes

 

And despite this is a Yes fans site. look at the ratings, except The Solid Gold Collection, which has obly one rating without review that gave them an undeserved 5 stars rating, most surely from a fanboy, most of them are between one point something and three.

 

Tell me if this is not a rip off?

 

Iván

 

 

 

 

- Some of those collections contain interesting otherwise unavailable material (or did at the time of their release).

- The packaging of the box sets can be excellent, with what amounts to short books on the band included

- Even basic best of packages can steer people towards the band. How many people have discovered Yes by picking up a best of set with "Owner of a lonely heart on it"?

- The Yes remixes album is not a best of. While I personally think it is a poor effort, to be fair it should not be simply included in a list of compilations

 I love the album, but for all the wrong reasons, I'd give it 4 stars as a techno album - I just can't see it as a Yes Greatest Hits album.

 

Crossover? By definition yes, by execution, no.

 

every rating has value here

 

On the other hand, you could probably retire to Venice if it were a nickel for every hahahahahaha.

No way José, I believe it's a rip off.

 

Box sets as Genesis Archives I where you have a live version you never dreamed to listen and a whole Lamb Lies Down on Broadway Live version...well that's an investment.

 

The first Anniversary Jethro Tull Box Set with unknown songs and some previously unreleased...That's an investment.

 

But The Pink Floyd Box containing 5 or 6 albums I already have or the Doors Box, I believe is a rip off by  the label.

 

Iván

 

BTW: No way Yes will leave Symphonic, they are an icon of the sub-genre. 

OK, collaborators "earned" their heavy voices, they sacrificed their lives to prog  , they never rest, never sleep etc.

 

But there is another side of the medal: if your voice means more than others, you should feel the responsibility. Everytime, when writing each review. Forget the words "this album stinks" and many other nice phrases, be extremely accurate with 1-star ratings. Am I wrong?