Reviews discussion

For God's sake leave 100 words limit. Any woman can tell you longer does not always mean better.

Thanks Mr. Hat 

That IS a good point, a longer review even for a bad album is better than short. I can personally say I've bought albums (or games, movies anything) despite negative reviews because they are so uninformative about why it is bad.

"Love beach sucks" OK got it.
But take some pride in reviewing. We all know Love Beach sucks but I would be much more impressed with a review going into the music and why they so say, and that'd be deserving of some more attention.

Actually, talking about Rob's reviews is more on-topic than talking about altering the system, IMO 

Epignosis wrote: Speaking of reviews, I finally posted a review of a couple of albums that's broad appeal I simply don't get.  I expect plenty of nasty PMs.

Yes, but for those albums that are so bad it's therefore not that big a deal. You know what I mean?
You are saying the limit shouldn't be changed because some don't need 300 words, but that hurts good reviews of good albums. Also, as you said if it doesn't need 500 words to say (this is crap) then it shouldn't be showcased anyway

And yes, no one is saying delete reviews because that's terrible, and no one is saying reviews should be judged on the # of words.
It needs to be read. As you said Ivan, song long reviews are terrible and make no sense with their criticism, but so do short ones.

We've seen 100 word reviews saying "this is terrible, what is wrong with this band they suck" and that's no good.
Anywho, that be all my input, really not much else to say. Really hope this is implemented


Edited by JJLehto - March 04 2012 at 17:43

Well, except my first ones (logically about my favorite albums like Foxtrot or Close to the Edge which I transferred from another place where I had published them before that are pretty short) all my reviews have an average of 500 words, but there are a few that have less than 300 words that I'm pretty proud about,

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - March 04 2012 at 17:31

Epignosis wrote: Speaking of reviews, I finally posted a review of a couple of albums that's broad appeal I simply don't get.  I expect plenty of nasty PMs.

Speaking of reviews, I finally posted a review of a couple of albums that's broad appeal I simply don't get.  I expect plenty of nasty PMs.  

colorofmoney91 wrote: Epignosis wrote:   I would never say that short reviews are universally uninformative. What I am saying to you is this: If you are unsatisfied with your reviews, revise them.  As for the other reviewers...it's their names on their reviews.  If a person sees so many "uninformative" reviews from John Doe, then John Doe will likely be ignored, even if his is the first or second one on the left-hand side. But because my old reviews are short and objectively uninformative, I'd have to rewrite them to become promoted, whereas people who are already promoted don't need to revise their old short objectively uninformative reviews to even maintain their promoted status. I'm having a really hard time describing what I mean. BTW, I really love debating things with you. You're well-spoken and you don't get immediately angry like a lot of people do.

I'm not the one who does any promoting.  If I were, I would deny you a promotion on the basis of your Kansas reviews. 

Seriously, I don't have an answer for the apparent inconsistency regarding old reviews.  All I can say is that (again), if I were you, I'd revise my reviews (especially if it meant a status bump).  It's a good exercise anyway.

I personally think people should invest some time in revising old, poor reviews.  Then again, not all of the collaborators were promoted because of their reviews, so there's that to consider.

And thank you!  The feeling is definitely mutual.