Reviews reporting thread

I've deleted it. There is an obvious copyright issue that could get us in trouble.

Should have pmd the reviewer though..

I'm a bit excited because Man Utd are beating Liverpool 3-0

The amazing Zardoz is back, whatever happened to the idea of limiting the number of reviews posted in one day?
It could be one more way to make the front page more appealing.

Hey, check this guy's reviews of the Beatles. They are more of a political statement about them being here, than actual reviews.

http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=164502


http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=164501

And progrules is a Prog Reviewer too. Shouldn't we expect more?

Edited by bhikkhu - March 21 2008 at 10:01

I preferred the old system as well, I think it was better visually. Anyway, I guess this isn't the right place to be posting this.

Edited by Easy Money - March 18 2008 at 12:55

^^^^

Atkingani wrote: Kobaia wrote: Atkingani wrote: Kobaia wrote: Nobody ever thought the policy of reviews here? It goes like this: Imagine a random proghead, pops here and wants to rate some records... 1) The site demands you to write a short review to support your rating 2) If you don't write it, the site punishes you with a (even) lesser weight of your rating 3) Your review will be brushed under the carpet anyhow (limited visibility) This site even encourages to write short, bad reviews. I'd expect more of those.   The site encourages the reviewers to support their ratings with a text accordingly. Our expectations are in the direction that reviewers with time would eventually improve their skills and write even more useful reviews. Hmmm.... What's behind those expectations? What's the reward? Why somebody would spent an hour or two by listening the album and writing a proper review of it? It's a lot easier to type some random opinions about the album just to fulfill the wordcount and get higher weighting. Further considering the review is "brushed under the carpet" in any case. Like myself, the only reason for me to write even decent review is my self-respect (that have failed me a few times  ). Furthermore, the site expresses its trust to a reviewer by denying him to edit (read: improve) his own reviews! Also that's a deed for a review quality?     The site expresses its trust to a reviewer by promoting him/her to the status of Prog-Reviewer and also even for those not yet promoted the Review Moderators are always ready to help editing (improving) if and when needed.

Since my post have woken some weird thoughts (People seem not to comprehend it, I'm even getting curious personal messages), I'd liked to straighten it...
I'm not attacking anybody, not even the site or it's policy. My purpose is only to make a note of few facts and where they may lead when put together.

Again, imagine a random proghead, pops here and wants to rate some records...

He/she has 3 choices:
1. Make a rating without a review
2. Rate with a proper review
3. Rate with a fast, crappy review

Now he knows that the weight of his/her rating will be something ridiculous without a review, and on the other hand, the site strongly encourages him/her to write a review. So, the choice no. 1 is bad. He/she decides to write a review.

Next he/she considers the choice 2. So, he/she can spent few hours with his/her review just to see that in the end it will be "brushed under the carpet", i.e. only few first words will remain visible...

On the other hand, choice 3 would make a same effect on rating but with far less work. Furthermore, it wouldn't piss off so much when the reviews visibility is cut off.

So the choice is been made...


Now, Atkingani suggests that the reward of no 2 is possible promotion to the status of Prog-Reviewer.  I just ask how many of these reviewers really want to be a prog-reviewer? When he/she considers the choice 2, he/she thinks: "Hmm... If I write a couple of hundred really good reviews I might me promoted to a prog-reviewer". Alright, it might happen in 0,1% of cases but the rest in not really realistic.



Edited by Kobaia - March 17 2008 at 17:13

Guillermo wrote: DJPuffyLemon wrote: this review: http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=162863 it sounds completely unprofessional. idk you guys make the call but it isn't flattering for the site to host something like this.   Yes. I reported the same review some weeks ago, and it wasn`t deleted!   Also, it is not the only  review for this album that has the word "crap" or something like that.

now that Guigo is back from vacation... maybe he'll do us all a favor and eliminate that travesty of an album review. 

I never imagine one would interpret "1) The site demands you to write a short review to support your rating" as write short, instead of long reviews, instead of write something, instead of simply rating. 

And is "demands" the exact word in the policy?

the real satisfaction is in a good review, expressing yourself well and helping someone who hasn't heard the album

this review: http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=162863

it sounds completely unprofessional. idk you guys make the call but it isn't flattering for the site to host something like this.