Require reviews for 1 star ratings

I apologize if this has already been submitted as a solution. I looked at a few threads complaining about "bad reviewers" and such, but I didn't see any with this possible solution. Like the topic says, it would be nice if it was required for people to explain their 1 star ratings with a review. Obviously this would probably be difficult to retro-activate, but it's just a thought. Also maybe the same treatment for 5 star reviews?

If you dislike an album enough to warrant it 1 star, then you must have at least 100 words to say why...

Perhaps it would be better if a clever one sentence review would be required. Like when Charles Baudelaire remarked about Richard Wagner's music:

Personally, if I consider an album to be only worth one star, then I don't waste my time writing a review. And I certainly don't want to mention it at all, hoping that it will eventually starve for lack of attention and die in the gutter.

Bucklebutt wrote: personally, if I think an album is 1 star, then I wouldn't even waste my time listening to it / rate it at all.

only time I could see myself giving a one star review is when a band I love does me wrong somehow, in which case I'm sure I'd have 100 words to say about it

Ideally we'd ditch the rating only feature entirely, but it will never happen (owners rule).

Hey a well-written bad review is fun to read and a blast to write, not to mention potentially informative.  Don't dismiss it.

I believe that a rating, no matter how low or high, deserves justification. I'm not the world's best reviewer, but when I rate an album, I feel an explanation is warranted. I do my best (when I'm not drunk.....). And I am careful with my selections, as I don't want to waste my hard-earned on 1 (or even 2) star albums.
BTW - Love Beach and The Works volumes are 3's for me (Volume 1 almost worth a 4).........

I've only written a few one-two star reviews, for a lot of reasons.

1. It doesn't feel good to put down someone's efforts.

2. Everyone's life comes with enough negatives, so why would I want to be the cause of upset and hurt to someone else? They've put in effort to create something, who am I to make them question themselves, if it doesn't personally click with me?

3. Unless you're just a snarky a****le or smart-ass kid (oftent hose two go together! , it's difficult to put a lot of effort into something negative.

At least coming from a progressive-rock point-of-view, at they very least there will usually be a lot of positives to appreciate - ie great playing, ambitious arrangements, etc - so those can be focused on rather than the bad.

(Heh, for instance, I was recently able to sneakily give the latest Dream Theater album a 5 star review even though I pretty much hated the friggin' thing!)

I even gave what I thought was a pretty fair (and encouraging) 3 star review once, and the artist got in touch saying `Oh my God, you hated my album??' This dumbfounded me, but even though I must have re-read it a few times just to be sure I remembered what I'd written, it still felt awful to think that it hurt someone.

Do I think my constant reviews become a blur of 5, 4, 3 star reviews, and wish I could throw in a few more `lousy' ones to avoid getting predictable? Absolutely! But it's just not worth my time, not worth the disappointment to the artist who took their time to compose that music that I didn't personally respond to, and life's too short to get a kick out of putting others down.

Tom Ozric wrote: ^ Funny, I think a 3 is a relatively good score (as it says on the packet).......

Ya-huh, that's what I thought!

I suppose it comes back to the whole `half star' argument. To some it seems there's an ocean of difference between a `3' and `4' star rating, so perhaps if it had had that precious half-star in the middle, it might have looked more appealing?

Yeah, but...I still maintain a 3 is perfectly fine!