Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives
https://forum.metal-archives.com/

Review FAQ/most common reasons for rejection
https://forum.metal-archives.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=44482
Page 2 of 3

Author:  Napero [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:31 am ]
Post subject: 

Just mention the website, it's OK. Adding a link to your profile is also a good way to make sure this doesn't happen again.

Author:  Zephirus [ Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:31 am ]
Post subject: 

how do i get in touch with the review moderators?
my review was rejected because 'you submitted your review twice'

this is because when I clicked the submit button it went to a blank white page with errors. no message or sign that it had been accepted, so I clicked submit again

accidental. the review was for dorwning the light - an alignment of dead stars

these are the errors i get at the top of the page. it was the same when i entered the review. i always get the errors on the forum page as shown below, any idea what this is? thanks

Image

Author:  failsafeman [ Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:00 am ]
Post subject: 

I don't see your review in the queue, so it must've gotten swallowed. The admins are on vacation until this weekend, so you'll have to wait for an answer until then for a definitive answer.

Have you tried resubmitting the review since?

Author:  Zephirus [ Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:04 am ]
Post subject: 

i've just checked the add/edit review section and it still seems to be there.

maybe when i first clicked it accepted this and when i didnt see any sign of acceptance and clicked again it automatically rejected the second instance.

i'll wait and see, thanks :)

Author:  failsafeman [ Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:13 am ]
Post subject: 

All right, there it is in the queue. I've accepted it.

PROBLEM SOLVED

Author:  Zephirus [ Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:19 am ]
Post subject: 

failsafeman wrote:
All right, there it is in the queue. I've accepted it.

PROBLEM SOLVED


super, thanks.

regards the page errors I get on the forum main page, have you seen that before?

Author:  failsafeman [ Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:39 am ]
Post subject: 

No, actually. Gonna have to wait until the admins are back to hear about that one, though.

Author:  jambo1 [ Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:51 am ]
Post subject: 

just to add to this i get this problem too.

Author:  demigod93 [ Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Just submitted my first couple of reviews last night, does anyone know how long it takes (on average) for them to be accepted?

Author:  kingnuuuur [ Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

demigod93 wrote:
Just submitted my first couple of reviews last night, does anyone know how long it takes (on average) for them to be accepted?

My first got accepted on the same day and my 2nd has yet to be accepted after almost a week.
Could be the shittiness of the first that turned people off. :lol:

Author:  ksevile [ Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

demigod93 wrote:
Just submitted my first couple of reviews last night, does anyone know how long it takes (on average) for them to be accepted?

It's mostly a "it will get done when it gets done" sort of thing. There is no set time limit for review evaluation or set number of moderators browsing the review queue on any given day. Most of them are within at least 2 weeks (if not less than) from what I know but as I said there is no set time. If you want to see if your review is still in the queue, just go to the review page for the release you submitted and if it's still there and editable, then it's still in the queue. Also, I'd like to point out that submission time usually doesn't affect the overall evaluation time, as they're (as far as I know) evaluated randomly, in no particular order.

Author:  Em_ [ Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Review FAQ/most common reasons for rejection

OzzyApu wrote:
eztr wrote:
From the review submission page:
Quote:
Make sure you use two enter strokes between the paragraphs,


Anyone want to clarify that for me plox?

To me this means that when you want to make a new paragraph, hit enter once at the end of the sentence to bring it down one line. After this, hit enter again to bring it down another to bring it to the line you'll be starting your next paragraph with.

Notice: one empty line as opposed to two key strokes


Aw, feck, because I read that as meaning two strokes ("//"). Confusing terminology.

I would think that to describe one blank line as "one blank line" would be clearer than to ask for two "strokes."

...just a suggestion...

Author:  MaDTransilvanian [ Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quick question concerning splits. If I'm reviewing a split album which has one band on the Archives and one band not on the Archives, should the review be of the entire split or just the portion taken up by the band on the Archives?

Author:  Zoldaten_ov_Zatan [ Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

You can do it either way.

Author:  jeanshack [ Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Opeth - Morningrise review

My review for the record Morningrise was rejected and the reason mentioned was that I did not follow the guidelines, I could think of only two reasons
> i had given the same review on my wordpress blog, following URL - http://madrants.wordpress.com/2010/04/2 ... -immortal/
&
> Possibly not enough content to form a review.

It would be great if any moderator can tell me what is off the mark here?
Thanks a ton!

Author:  EntilZha [ Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

It's an NWOBHM-inspired mixture of black metal and progressive death metal which is more melodic than "Orchid". That's it in terms of content.

Author:  jeanshack [ Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

OK! Understood!

Author:  gazeovice [ Sun Jun 20, 2010 8:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

My review for Cannibal Corpse's Bloodlust was approved, yet it was rejected later, I'm curious as to why as it was correctly punctuated, and it was a perfect score. My email also doesn't get approval or rejection emails either, for some reason they just don't reach it, thanks for your time everyone.

Author:  Snowgrave [ Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:08 pm ]
Post subject: 

gazeovice wrote:
My review for Cannibal Corpse's Bloodlust was approved, yet it was rejected later, I'm curious as to why as it was correctly punctuated, and it was a perfect score. My email also doesn't get approval or rejection emails either, for some reason they just don't reach it, thanks for your time everyone.

Probably because Cannibal Corpse never released an album called Bloodlust. Check out the last few posts in the Oven Fodder thread here.

Author:  gazeovice [ Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

Snowgrave wrote:
gazeovice wrote:
My review for Cannibal Corpse's Bloodlust was approved, yet it was rejected later, I'm curious as to why as it was correctly punctuated, and it was a perfect score. My email also doesn't get approval or rejection emails either, for some reason they just don't reach it, thanks for your time everyone.

Probably because Cannibal Corpse never released an album called Bloodlust. Check out the last few posts in the Oven Fodder thread here.


Ok I read the posts, thanks I will resubmit after the corrections, thank you

Author:  john_neg [ Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:26 am ]
Post subject: 

Here's the review written for the band The Howling Void
http://metal-archives.com/release.php?id=265541

It's titled "Solitude is possibly the worst label ever"
and contains phrases like "the idiots at Solitude Productions" etc.

It looks like a Sabotage review and violate the rule
3) Intelligence and decency

No problem that reviewer don't like the music but I think it's bad when he tell such words about the label

Author:  droneriot [ Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:41 am ]
Post subject: 

Reviewers are not obliged to cuddle anyone, as long as they give reasons for saying what they are saying.

Author:  mentalendoscopy [ Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:15 am ]
Post subject: 

Please correct me if this is the wrong thread, but how, exactly, do I get the URL to pages which contain reviews, etc.? I've looked all over the site for information on how to do this but have come up with nothing.

Author:  Ice_As_Steel [ Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:11 am ]
Post subject: 

Go to the author's profile, then go to their listed reviews, then you can open the reviews in new tabs and the URL bar will have the URL to go directly to that review.

Author:  MutantClannfear [ Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

I submitted this review for Meshuggah's "The True Human Design" and it was rejected because of a "track-by-track" listing. Although I agree fully with the view on track by track reviews, I believe that this review is an exception.

If you hear this album (or read the review) you'll kinda notice that the album can't really be summarized. It consists of two Meshuggah-style songs, a country song, an industrial metal song, and two techno songs. I personally believe that a review of this album needs to go over every song in full, because this album is so varied that it can't really be sumarized in a few paragraphs.

Thoughts or comments? My review was as follows:

Lemme say this upfront: if you have any aversion to techno music, do not buy this. Over half of the material is just that. With that out of the way, I may begin the official review. Ahem... Meshuggah have always been known for a good sense of humor for a metal band, rivaled only by The Red Chord. If you've ever wanted to see it, and get some kickass music along the way, then this record is what you're looking for. This record contains a demo version of the song "Sane" which appears on the "Chaosphere" full-length, a live version of the song "Future Breed Machine", and four remixes of that song: a slow, intensely heavy version (imagine grinding atoms in a nuclear reactor), a "Campfire Version" dubbed "Futile Bread Machine", and the two aforementioned techno songs: "Quant's Quantastical Quantasm" and "Friend's Breaking And Entering".

"Sane" is probably one of the only songs by Meshuggah that doesn't rely much on rhythmical complexity, so much as just making it catchy and fun as fuck to listen to. Personally, I believe this is where Jens Kidman's voice hit its maximum potential: after this EP, his voice started degrading in my opinion. So yes, I love his yells on this album. They're almost preferable to death growls, somehow. The outro riff is about as catchy as can possibly be achieved by five men (which is thankfully a lot; we ARE talking about Meshuggah here), and we move onto the next track, "Future Breed Machine (Live)". I have no idea when this was recorded (I'm assuming sometime in early 1997), but two comments: one, the quality is amazingly great, especially for something that feels like it was a "spur of the moment" recording; and for two, Jens' voice is amazing on this live performance, I might add. If you disagree, listen to the recently-released Alive and then come back and listen to this. The guitars are more intense than they are on the album version, and the drums are cooler too. And, even better, at the end you get to hear a dumbass fan shouting "Me-shug-gah" over and over and make an idiot of himself to be heard all over the world whenever someone buys this CD. Up next we have a personal favorite for many: "Future Breed Machine (Mayhem Version)". Imagine, if you will, the original "Future Breed Machine", played entirely on distorted chords, filled with mechanical ambience, two times slower, and on an acid trip. Cool, eh? It is. One of the reviewers below said this song got their vote for the heaviest song ever. I wouldn't say that much...But goddammit, it comes pretty close, I'll give it that. 4:14 signals the start of a bunch of a bunch of random vocal noises that sound JUST like Whourkr. (Never heard of them? French electronic deathgrind, check em out. But I digress.) You know the part in the normal version of the song after the instrumental break? This part, on to the end, is probably the heaviest thing Meshuggah will ever produce.

...And as soon as Meshuggah raises your blood pressure to dangerous levels, they lower it back down with what may be the funniest thing a metal band has ever done. "Futile Bread Machine (Campfire Version)" is basically a country version of the song "Future Breed Machine", with all the same lyrics, and it's pure fucking gold! It's sung entirely by drummer Tomas Haake, except for the chants. I swear, if you don't laugh when he says "Destroy, erase, improve? Wha's that all about, eh?", "Seeeeeeeeeee maaaaaaaay..." or "We're docile servant dogs...-our leashes are your limbs", just kill yourself now. This song obviously doesn't have much in actual musical content for the average Meshuggah listener, but I'll be damned if it isn't funny as fuck. Up next are the two techno songs. "Quant's Quantastical Quantasm" has noises that remind me of science, test tubes and the like. The only lyrics in this entire song are "evolution", "boom", and "mechanical thoughts I now conceive, no longer me". I think of this song like I think of drone doom; you're not supposed to actively listen to it, you lay back, close your eyes and think of the world with a new perspective while the song plays. The next song is more actively thinking techno; it's got a lot more going on, drawing influences from typical techno drum beats. At around 0:50, an ominous drone chimes in and the song goes from calming to unnerving in an instant. As is typical techno style, the only lyrics to this song are "See me, be me", "by the new machine", and "a sign of times, streams turn into systems; a new way, a new breed implanted in our minds". Later, the droning returns, and along with what sounds like an old cell phone ringtone. The whole song is about as close as you'll get to a legal acid trip. Later in the song, we hear some muffled industrial riffs in the background, plus pure techno noises in the foreground. The song - and album - ends with the ominous droning.

This whole EP, in my opinion is great. However, I have musical tolerance for a lot of genres that people here don't. Slipknot, classical music, deathcore...even a Lady Gaga mood strikes me now and then. Thus, I didn't mind the techno songs. If you feel the same way about techno, assume this score to be the 95 it is. If you hate techno, though, put the score at a 66 for yourself and decide from there. And as a final note, if nothing's wrong with this CD, why not a 100? Because although this CD indeed has no true flaws (unless you want to be nitpicky and say "this note and this note belonged over here and this should have been developed over there, not here"), the songs are only great. Not astonishing, just great. I promise you, the first 100 I give to an album on the Metal Archives will not be easily earned. It may be years before an album that I declare gets a 100 comes to my attention. And that makes the integrity of the value of that score all the greater.

Author:  horrorinfinity [ Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:12 am ]
Post subject: 

i posted a review for spectral silence "ruins..." demo and it was rejected two times. could someone tell me why? i have to know what was the reason for that? would be nice if somebody answer my question this time because i was often ignored for unknown reason.thanx

Author:  OzzyApu [ Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:33 am ]
Post subject: 

Post the review in the review feedback thread so we can take a look at it.

Author:  androdion [ Sun Jan 23, 2011 9:10 am ]
Post subject: 

Just a quick question about formatting on the review. I normally write my reviews on MS Word and then copy-paste them to the site. I haven't got any problems so far with the reviews, but the last ones I submitted were all rejected based on formatting/typos/etc. I recently changed my paragraph formatting style in MS Word, could it be that it affected the actual formatting on the site after doing the copy-paste?

I turned back to the original style, and also added some paragraphs to make it less "wall-like", but I was just wondering if the formatting was the main problem.

Author:  MacMoney [ Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:39 am ]
Post subject: 

androdion wrote:
Just a quick question about formatting on the review. I normally write my reviews on MS Word and then copy-paste them to the site. I haven't got any problems so far with the reviews, but the last ones I submitted were all rejected based on formatting/typos/etc. I recently changed my paragraph formatting style in MS Word, could it be that it affected the actual formatting on the site after doing the copy-paste?

I turned back to the original style, and also added some paragraphs to make it less "wall-like", but I was just wondering if the formatting was the main problem.


Fire up Notepad and write your reviews with that. You don't need anything more sophisticated than that to write reviews for MA. Or if you still insist on using MS Word, copypaste your review through Notepad before putting it forward to MA. Though to tell you the truth, I think one should be able to tell from the reviews submission-window whether it looks correct or not.

Author:  caspian [ Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:51 am ]
Post subject: 

john_neg wrote:
Here's the review written for the band The Howling Void
http://metal-archives.com/release.php?id=265541

It's titled "Solitude is possibly the worst label ever"
and contains phrases like "the idiots at Solitude Productions" etc.

It looks like a Sabotage review and violate the rule
3) Intelligence and decency

No problem that reviewer don't like the music but I think it's bad when he tell such words about the label


I'm honoured! :D

Author:  soul_schizm [ Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Review FAQ/most common reasons for rejection

I think it's worth noting again that if an album has 15 or 20 reviews, the chances that you are offering something new is pretty slim.

Sure, I could add another 95-100% review of Abigail, but what would be the point? Most of us love that album, it's already been said. If you can think of good reasons to trash it, by all means have at it. But that's pretty unlikely.

I'd rather see some of the lesser known releases get reviewed, so people can know at least one person's take on it. That helps us all discover new bands.

Just my 2 cents.

Author:  Svartekrist [ Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Review FAQ/most common reasons for rejection

Okay, this says "frequently asked questions" so I will assume it is okay of me to ask this here but if not, I am sorry.

How long does it usually take before a review is either approved or rejected?

Author:  popsi_netn [ Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Review FAQ/most common reasons for rejection

Hey, hi!

I want to review some albums here.
I'm a French-Canadian [(La Tuque, Qu├ębec, bitches!)], saying I'm a French-language speaking dude, English is only my second spoken language, learning it in school.

I can speak English, and yes, I can write English. But here's the problem: in a 3-400 words english review of an album, I'll probably exceed the grammaticlly errors the website's moderator would tolerate.

Is there a way to review albums without being scrapped because of my poor English mastering or am I doomed for only learning english from songs lyrics and college (I'm tricking here, I went to secondaire, not "college") teachers?

Thanks for the response !


[Edit: (ps. I don't review anything yet, nor do I got a rejected album's critic, I was asking before I do anything on the website. (I'm lazy and I don't want to do something for nothing))]

Author:  MalignantThrone [ Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Review FAQ/most common reasons for rejection

You could write your review and then ask a friend who's fluent in English (or even someone here on this forum) to proofread it for you.

Author:  Kommandojonna [ Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Review FAQ/most common reasons for rejection

failsafeman wrote:
If your review was rejected, it was most probably because of one of these reasons:
6. Factual errors
In case people were wondering, reviews are rarely rejected based on factual errors. We fully support reviewers' rights to their own opinions, as long as those opinions are expressed in an intelligent way, and it takes some really blatant mistakes to get a review rejected (calling Iron Maiden black metal, for example). Now, most of the time reviews with these kinds of errors are also lacking in other respects, so they're almost never the sole basis for rejection.

I wonder why Midnyte13's review for Amorphis Privilege of Evil was ever accepted since she claims that the EP contains re-recorded material although Privilege of Evil was recorded before The Karelian Isthmus. :roll:

Author:  MacMoney [ Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Review FAQ/most common reasons for rejection

Fixed.

Author:  sublime_wreckage [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Review FAQ/most common reasons for rejection

updated a review of mine for Mgla (compilation cd) Mdlosci + Further Down the Nest... the thing is I saved it as a Draft at first. Then later that day I submitted it to the queue, or so I thought. Its been since a couple weeks (longest I've ever had to wait)... so I decided to check my profile and under the "all reviews" page it shows the status of the review as "Draft". I'm just wondering if its in fact still in the submission queue or did it never make it?

Anyway, I figured I'd ask here before simply trying to submit it again in case it was already in the queue---didn't want a duplicate obviously. Thanks for any help.

Author:  androdion [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Review FAQ/most common reasons for rejection

As far as I know if it's saved as a draft it hasn't been submitted to the queue.

Author:  Morrigan [ Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Review FAQ/most common reasons for rejection

Draft = unsubmitted, yes. I wouldn't worry about duplicates, if your review's already in the queue it will show up as "pending" under "My reviews".

Author:  DaveMadThrasher [ Wed May 23, 2012 10:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Review FAQ/most common reasons for rejection

I uploaded my review for the german thrash band Pripjat two weeks ago... it follows all the standards... why is it still "pending"?

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/