Reviews discussion

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: HTCF wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Please ths review calls Prog Snob and mentions my name   http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=281237   I believe this breaks all the rules n this site so must be deleted even if it's written by the members of Unifaun.   Iván HAHAHA thats hilarious {notes: edited to add quote for context, and moved to appropriate topic} Not hilarious, several times reviews have been deleted necause names are mention, specially because you can't reply or post your position, because the guidelines are clear:

I meant the particular manner in which this musician in question was defending his own band

By the way, is it logical to leave this 4 star rating from a member of the band on what would otherwise be a 2-3 star rated album?

^ I have email alerts set for both threads, ...I also sleep with one eye open.

Epignosis wrote: Logan wrote: Sorry to point this out, but unless the rules have changed, this thread is for reporting abuse, discussion should be done here: Reviews discussion By Easy Livin, September 08 2006 at 15:01 Atkingani wrote: To be clearer, folks.   http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28344   Thanks! Yes. I've been a good boy and I've abided by that many times in the past.  However, the reviews abuse reporting thread is in a completely different place than the reviews discussion thread, and when you do follow the rules, your post(s) typically get ignored, because you didn't post in the "hot zone" along with everyone else.

Of course that was directed as a reminder to everyone who uses the report abuse thread as a discussion thread.  I know it's a hassle quoting a post from that thread and discussing it here, though not as much of a hassle as it was for me to move a bunch of posts to this thread one at a time, but if people get into the habit of it, then it's not that hard.  If they get used to it and abide by the expectations, then they won't post in response there to the post that reports abuse and this becomes the "hot zone".  It's difficult for the admins to keep an eye on abusive reports when there's a bunch of non-reporting chat/discussion posts that obscure them. 

^lol, if that's true they have serious issues, trying not to offend anyone.

^ah, I see. Hadn't thought of that before, I'll see if it works with me for future reviews.

^probably too kind.

Logan wrote: Sorry to point this out, but unless the rules have changed, this thread is for reporting abuse, discussion should be done here: Reviews discussion By Easy Livin, September 08 2006 at 15:01

Atkingani wrote: To be clearer, folks.   http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28344   Thanks!

Yes.

I've been a good boy and I've abided by that many times in the past.  However, the reviews abuse reporting thread is in a completely different place than the reviews discussion thread, and when you do follow the rules, your post(s) typically get ignored, because you didn't post in the "hot zone" along with everyone else.

J-Man wrote: Marty McFly wrote:   Epignosis wrote: As an aside, I wonder why the author of that review even feels the need to defend his work (especially when almost all of reviewers gave it three stars or more). Because for many people, average of 3 stars means extremely bad ? Just thinking. 3 stars means "good, but non-essential". I know that you're more generous with your ratings (which is not at all a bad thing), but for most people it means an album that is recommended to fans of the genre, but won't blow everyone away. I think the review should be deleted. There's no reason that we should leave a review that calls our more esteemed reviewers "prog snobs" on our site.

Jeff, don't tale me bad. I agree with you, I agree with Iván.

I heard many times what 3 stars means and it SHOULDN'T meant anything bad, for from some reasons, for many people (I believe), it MEANS bad rating for these people. I'm not defending them, I'm not with them, but I feel obliged to explain how they MAY think. I use capital letters because I'm lazy to use bold text :-) --- Well, they see top charts, they see all these albums with 4.43 ratings, or even higher if they are new. They want to see their beloved albums as high as Prog classics for example. And they complain when they see their album (in this case it's even co-author of this album, or at least someone who claims to be) with 3 bloody stars. 

I don't think like that, but if they do, it would explain a lot.

Leave aside my ratings, because even it's not a bad thing, it's not good either to rate as high as I rate. I'm trying to be more sober last months and I also revisited a lot of my ratings so lower them (sometimes raise) to make it more continuous. Basically - I give 5 star rating to an album that I really like, really think it's masterpiece. To albums that have magic, that are somehow unique.

Asides, I was thinking a hell of a time about this problem. You may rate as guidelines says, many others with 10 weighted rating may too, some may rate higher (there is more of us, who generally rates higher, but also lower, for example Sean Trane rates quite low, but he has a reason for that), but in the end,

many of these normal members tends to rate their loved albums with 5 stars. You can see all the time on main page, they are simply doing this. This maybe spoils the ratings, but if you give sober rating of 3 and two fans give 5 star ratings each, result will be 4 star from 3 ratings.

All I'm trying to say is that this exists and it's not easy to capture, this phenomenon is more like feeling that something isn't right than anything real.

Marty McFly wrote:   Epignosis wrote: As an aside, I wonder why the author of that review even feels the need to defend his work (especially when almost all of reviewers gave it three stars or more). Because for many people, average of 3 stars means extremely bad ? Just thinking.

3 stars means "good, but non-essential". I know that you're more generous with your ratings (which is not at all a bad thing), but for most people it means an album that is recommended to fans of the genre, but won't blow everyone away.

I think the review should be deleted. There's no reason that we should leave a review that calls our more esteemed reviewers "prog snobs" on our site.

With this first offering with "UNIFAUN", the duo set out to do "the songs Genesis never did",

 

http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=3942

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - May 10 2010 at 16:52