Reviews reporting thread

I don't think this review really says anything about the album in question. It also seems to me more of an excuse to bash the band:

http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=164038

Though I agree with John about the 'sacred cows' (which sometimes seems as if we are supposed to like no matter what), I also think one's negative opinion should be presented in a more useful manner, and not just as 'I don't like X'. All he has to offer on the subject is that Ian Anderson's voice doesn't do a lot for him. If we try to put ourselves in the shoes of someone who has never heard the album, we'll find we don't get any information as to its actual content.

I'm with you John and Raff.  I find these kind of reviews (not just this guys) pretty pointless exclamations of the Amazon variety.  I do not like "short review bombardment" because flat out, you can have a quality reviewer work for hours on a long thoughtful review only to see it pushed immediately off the page by rapid fire posters.  I have asked Admin to consider making the site allow no more than 2 or 3 reviews per day by an individual poster.  That would increase the quality of reviews perhaps. 

My concern is quality and are not directed just at Zardoz, but those who do machine-gun 4 sentence reviews.  I hope that future promotions are not made on the basis of quantity and I have suggested to admin that they remove the quantity consideration and go flatly on their notion of quality.  That is what the site needs.  More good reviews, not just more Amazon 5-star "this is awesome" reviews. 

If these comments are inappropriate I ask Admin to remove the post.  Sometimes I'm not sure if my opinions are appreciated which is why I don't often get involved in these more serious topics.  But I have a strong desire to see the quality of the site's reviews go up and match that of what I see on other sites.  We have many people who are better than the other sites stock reviewers, but unlike them, we allow far too many that are sub-par in my view.  I realize the site prides itself on letting everyone have writing freedom, and yet at times I wish Admin would simply nuke reviews that are not of the quality and depth we want first time visitors to see.  Again, please remove this if I am out of line here. 

Can we at least all agree that criteria for promotion should be quality exclusively, rather than quantity? 

Here's an example of the kind that this morning pushed an earlier, better Maiden review off the page...Should it?  If we had a 3 review per day cap this could be avoided I think.  Last, 7 of his 9 reviews currently gracing our front page are either 1-star or 5 star reviews, showing he has no respect for the site's guidelines that these ratings be used very sparingly.   Is it good for the site to have 9 reviews of this type on the lead page when a visitor shows up? 




Edited by Finnforest - March 16 2008 at 12:03

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.

Finnforest wrote:   I have asked Admin to consider making the site allow no more than 2 or 3 reviews per day by an individual poster.  That would increase the quality of reviews perhaps.

..and your opinions are always appreciated, James, at least by me they are and I think quite a few others











Edited by Atavachron - March 16 2008 at 17:12

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.

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

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?

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. 

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