Review Pet Peeves

Was thinking of doing a poll on this subject. I've been visiting this site for not quite a year yet. I find it very useful to assist in exploring a new to me band. It's even led to some new discoveries that I probably wouldn't have found out about otherwise. Amazed at some of the detail people can go into about an album sometimes.

Here's three things that bug me. Would like to hear any others that I haven't thought of.

1. Bad rounding. I'd like to think that fans of prog are more intelligent than the average person. A .5 does not round down it rounds up. Basic math. If you want give an album extra credit but not a whole extra star, don't go above a .4. No, .45 doesn't count. That also rounds up.

2. Trashing an album when you don't like the band or their sub-genre anyway. Why waste your time? It seems like inevitably these types are just trying to show off how clever of a music critic they are. I don't think anyone's really impressed other than you with yourself. It's certainly useful if you're a fan and you explain why you don't like the particular direction they took with this release or that.

3. The phrase "in my opinion" or "IMO". Unless you psychically channel other peoples opinions, it's really redundant.

If you are guilty of any of these, please stop.
    

Edited by Slartibartfast - January 09 2007 at 19:15

Witchwoodhermit wrote: In my opinion, your silly thread rates a 3.5. [IMG>height=17 alt=Smile src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley1.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>

Yeah and I bet you're not even going to round it up properly are you?
     

Slartibartfast wrote: 1. Bad rounding. I'd like to think that fans of prog are more intelligent than the average person. A .5 does not round down it rounds up. Basic math. If you want give an album extra credit but not a whole extra star, don't go above a .4. No, .45 doesn't count. That also rounds up.

I don't think people, for example, call an album 4.5 but give it 5 stars because of bad math, they just feel it's closer to a 5 than a 4.


Edited by Sasquamo - January 09 2007 at 20:37

Sasquamo wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: 1. Bad rounding. I'd like to think that fans of prog are more intelligent than the average person. A .5 does not round down it rounds up. Basic math. If you want give an album extra credit but not a whole extra star, don't go above a .4. No, .45 doesn't count. That also rounds up.      I don't think people, for example, call an album 4.5 but give it 5 stars because of bad math, they just feel it's closer to a 5 than a 4.

Hey, are you trying to be funny? I was complaining about people saying it's a .5 and not rounding up.
     

Proper rounding rarely has anything do do with it. If I like an album more than a 4 but less than a 5, I'll give it a 4.5, but why would I round it up to a perfect score if I clearly don't think it is perfect?

I generally round up though except on 4.5s, which I always round down. But the same applies to a 2.5. If I have to give it either a 2 or a 3, I'll give it what I'm more comfortable giving it without taking into account rounding. People should read the review and know that I really think the album is worth a 2.5 no matter what I actually gave it as a star rating.

Funny how people see things. I always understand a .5 as meaning one half. Therefore it's always seen as a rounding up. I'm not being critical, it's just interesting how people view things at different angles.

Slartibartfast wrote: Hmm, thought of a fourth - I see a repeating theme that tracks on an album must be "cohesive" for the album to be good. Oddly enough, sometimes there can be cohesion by the set being completely uncohesive. Variety rules!

on the other hand, we shouldn't be encouraging the bands who ignore transitions and make their music as stilted and discontinuous as possible just to be avant-garde. the world only needs so much fantomas, hardscore and millard mulch. a composer can bring in a variety of elements but a good composer can justify their inclusion..

On the rounding issue: I think it would be best to introduce half stars into the system, to avoid people rounding wrong, so to speak.


Edited by Philéas - January 10 2007 at 06:21

billbuckner wrote: ^^^Agreed with the half-stars.My pet peeve is when people use a review to trash an unrelated band, as in, "This album is likely too hard and complex for Genesis fans".

    
I'm glad I didn't see that. I hate generalizations. This Genesis fan also likes Zeuhl, Zappa, and is just discovering Riverside.

I think it makes less sense when people rate each track and find the average. I think I once saw animals with 4 stars because the opener and closer (1 minute long each) got 3 stars while the main songs got 5 stars. The average rating considerig time would end up being like 4.9 instead.