Reviews reporting thread

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ^ Agreed, but since when did 'meh' qualify as analysis? If you were able to offer the positivity you afford to the title track commensurately for those you care less for, it may well have been a blinding review. Just put a bit more flesh on the bones and you'll be halfway there. BTW for me Sailors Tale is the only redeeming track on the album

Originally posted by ExittheLemming Originally posted by Snow Dog I honestly do not see the problem as wrong as it is the author's own work.  The problem arises because the majority of volunteer based web sites who publish member submissions are granted an irrevocable licence over such materials i.e. the author does NOT own his/her work - the act of submitting a review for example, grants ProgArchives an exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sub licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such ratings, reviews and comments throughout the world in any media, whether now known or hereafter developed I'm sure that both of us would agree that the foregoing is pretty thorough.

A lot of my reviews were ones I originally wrote for my music blog, then posted on PA in order to share my thoughts with people who would otherwise not see them. I never realized that would be a problem, but if this is the policy of the site, it makes me less likely to review in the future.

I would have thought the goal would be having as many reviews as possible in order to best serve people trying to determine whether they will like a particular album, not to amass intellectual property and prevent it from being seen elsewhere.

Originally posted by Sheavy Originally posted by dtguitarfan Maybe mine is being singled out because people here love motW? If it makes you feel any better, I bet you my review will actually generate MORE interest in the album.   You really gotta stop going into this.

Besides, yours was singled out probably because you actually mentioned in the review that it had been previously published elsewhere.  Other such examples usually don't make that piece of info known.  Personally, I think it was the responsible thing to do, for you to "footnote" the review like that, but apparently reproducing (in full) previously published material of any kind poses problems.  News to me, but that's how it is.

Personally, I thought your review was a pretty creative approach. I'm not sure I'd extract a "one star" value out of it, but that's your choice.

I've seen other reviews where the authors have mentioned the review being posted elsewhere, and I've never heard of there being a problem with that.  I really don't see a reason why this one should be singled out when the practice has been allowed for this long.  Dean already said that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with it, and it's not "self-promotion," either, it's taking something you wrote for another site and sharing it with this one.

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Some people on PA (like me) rarely visit MMA, and some people on MMA rarely visit PA.  So if you want the review to be read, it makes sense to post it in both places.  I see no way in which that qualifies as "spam."

Originally posted by thellama73 Originally posted by ExittheLemming Originally posted by Snow Dog I honestly do not see the problem as wrong as it is the author's own work.  The problem arises because the majority of volunteer based web sites who publish member submissions are granted an irrevocable licence over such materials i.e. the author does NOT own his/her work - the act of submitting a review for example, grants ProgArchives an exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sub licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such ratings, reviews and comments throughout the world in any media, whether now known or hereafter developed I'm sure that both of us would agree that the foregoing is pretty thorough. A lot of my reviews were ones I originally wrote for my music blog, then posted on PA in order to share my thoughts with people who would otherwise not see them. I never realized that would be a problem, but if this is the policy of the site, it makes me less likely to review in the future. I would have thought the goal would be having as many reviews as possible in order to best serve people trying to determine whether they will like a particular album, not to amass intellectual property and prevent it from being seen elsewhere.

I'm only quoting the rights applicable to materials posted on this site for our member's information. The implementation of those rights is at the discretion of the site owner but NOT the avowed goal of the site and no-one has ever stated as much.
I'm therefore puzzled and disappointed as to why you have jumped to such a conclusion?
Like Dean has said, we are not in the habit of removing reviews because they also appear on other sites. That would be counter productive to encouraging reviews and I like to think everyone else understands that.
To the letter of the law the site owner COULD attempt to prevent publication elsewhere but in reality this would be both impractical and difficult to enforce plus it would be detrimental to PA's aim of being the most complete and powerful progressive rock resource innit?

^have to  admit, one star is a bit harsh. Seems like  a reaction rating.

Originally posted by dtguitarfan Originally posted by Snow Dog ^have to  admit, one star is a bit harsh. Seems like  a reaction rating. Fair enough - but why isn't this discussion being had over the fact that there are so many 5 star ratings for this album?  Is this strange piece of weirdness REALLY a necessary piece of EVERY Prog lover's collection?  Or is it something that more adventurous people should try out and those just getting into Prog should stay away from until they've become more acquainted?  Maybe the PA admins should start telling people all over the site that their ratings are inappropriate? (I'm not serious.)

Is your 1 star rating a retaliation for all the 5-star ratings - yes or no?

Originally posted by dtguitarfan Originally posted by Dean Originally posted by dtguitarfan Originally posted by Snow Dog ^have to  admit, one star is a bit harsh. Seems like  a reaction rating. Fair enough - but why isn't this discussion being had over the fact that there are so many 5 star ratings for this album?  Is this strange piece of weirdness REALLY a necessary piece of EVERY Prog lover's collection?  Or is it something that more adventurous people should try out and those just getting into Prog should stay away from until they've become more acquainted?  Maybe the PA admins should start telling people all over the site that their ratings are inappropriate? (I'm not serious.) Is your 1 star rating a retaliation for all the 5-star ratings - yes or no?   (I'm moderately serious) My 1 star was based primarily on the fact that I did not enjoy the album (I was creeped out by it) and will probably never listen to it again, and as such I would want my readers to see a negative reaction.  A neutral 3 star just would not cut it for me in this case.

That's good to know - after your experience with Part The Second I'm impressed by your determination and resolve to give them one more chance at impressing you, even if it was in vane - this tends to suggest that leaving Your Body Map is one you should avoid like the plague now.

^ It will last until the end of this site.