Review Pet Peeves
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33034
Printed Date: July 15 2025 at 20:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Review Pet Peeves
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Subject: Review Pet Peeves
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 19:14
|
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. 
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Witchwoodhermit
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 19:34
In my opinion, your silly thread rates a 3.5.
 ------------- Here I'm shadowed by a dragon fig tree's fan ringed by ants and musing over man. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 20:18
Yeah and I bet you're not even going to round it up properly are you?  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Witchwoodhermit wrote:Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 20:34
Sorry, but IMHO that was pretty friggin' funny!
E ------------- 
|
Posted By: Sasquamo
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 20:36
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. |
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 20:50
Couldn't agree more, it's dumb and annoying, an album must be rated as a whole piece of music.
True, if you dislike a sub genre it is best to leave it alone since the purpose of reviews is to recommend and unbiasedly analyze an album, and if a reader looks at a band's reviews means that he is interested in the sub genre therefore your review is useless to him.
It's my opinion because I said it, duh.
100% innocent!  I'd like to add the phrase "What can I say that hasn't already been said" to that list. There's even a thread about it somewhere.... ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 20:53
Hey, are you trying to be funny? I was complaining about people saying it's a .5 and not rounding up.  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 22:22
|
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! ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 22:33
|
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. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: January 09 2007 at 23:45
|
I usually do round up, but not at the ends. I am not going to an album 5 stars, unless it is a five star album. I am also not going to give it one, unless it only merits one. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: Witchwoodhermit
Date Posted: January 10 2007 at 00:38
|
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. ------------- Here I'm shadowed by a dragon fig tree's fan ringed by ants and musing over man. |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: January 10 2007 at 00:51
|
BTW:
4.45 rounds down as 4.00 or rounds up to 4.5 never should it be rounded up to 5.00, that would be a violation of the rounding regulations as described by the board of Roundingisation Of Numbers. The use of halves in reviews is a good indication of the truest value for the rating. 3.00 stars means a value between 2.50 and 3.49, where 3.50 means a value between 3.25 and 3.74. But given the actual rating being 3.00 stars or 4.00 stars it signals where the actual rating lies. So the true value is probable round the +0.25 or -0.25 of the actual rating. You can downrate with an half, or uprate with an half to signal how the rounded given rating must be interpreted. ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: January 10 2007 at 01:10
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.. ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: January 10 2007 at 03:55
|
For me one of the real strengths of the site is the diversity of the reviews. The many different approaches, styles, etc. are what makes this site unique. On one of the specific comments, I am actually keen that people occasionally review bands and genres they don't like. It makes them think about why they don't like them, and may even help them to find things they do like in them. Such reviews also offer a different perspective, giving a better overall picture of the album.
Now if anyone else starts their review "What can I say about this album which has not already been said...", "I don't have much to add to the other reviews...", I won't be held responsible for my actions!
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: January 10 2007 at 06:21
|
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. |
Posted By: billbuckner
Date Posted: January 10 2007 at 06:28
|
^^^ 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". |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: January 10 2007 at 12:59
I'm glad I didn't see that. I hate generalizations. This Genesis fan also likes Zeuhl, Zappa, and is just discovering Riverside. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: January 10 2007 at 14:13
|
I thought rounding up meant gaining weight. ------------- "Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain |
Posted By: Zitro
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 23:10
| 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. |
Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 20:35
|
I don't think you can supress people to write reviews of bands which genre is not liked by the reviewer, as long as he/she makes arguments to back it up.. and it's quite obvious that if a person rates 4 stars to an album while posting 4.5 star rating, the person believes it's closer to a 4 than a 5, therefore the "real" rating would be 4.49 or 4.45. Some of us also tend to avoid math
Another pet peeve is when you put the thread in the wrong section
------------- Jesus Gabriel |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 20:43
|
"1. Bad rounding. I'd like to think that fans of prog are more intelligent than the average person"
...well, that is one of my pet peeves - intelligence cannot be rated by musical taste! Prog is my favourite music and I'm as thick as 3 short planks - or should I say as thick as a brick....
-------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|