I've always thought the guidelines for what exactly is constituted as "metal" to be anything but cut-and-dry, and I can't help but think that the lack of any concrete examples or indication is what causes such a fuss in terms of people getting upset that their band didn't get accepted, or that "X band is on here, when they're not even really metal". All anyone really has to go on at the moment is this little snippet from the rules:



Is it really that obvious? What specifically separates a metal riff from a non-metal one? Is it a matter of composition? Playing technique? And what about different styles of metal? Thrash, Power, Black, Tech Death, all reliant on completely different types of riffs, yet with no apparent distinction of what makes each type acceptable, or how they all happen to conveniently fall under the same blanket term of "metal riff". What type of groove riff is allowed, and which is not? Where exactly does "prog" end, and "djent" begin? And so on. I believe this is what ultimately causes confusion, and as such there needs to be a way to show people in advance, "THIS is an example of what we deem acceptable for inclusion here".

How to go about this? Maybe add another column on each band page to indicate which releases qualify, with a check mark next to those that do, and leaving those that do not blank. Yes, I know some bands with a generally non-metal history like Def Leppard and Soulfly among others have their first accepted albums listed in the descriptions, or that the genre tag may indicate the switch to another style later in their career, but that only gives so much information without necessarily providing a specific cut-off point. By letting people know in no uncertain terms what is a concrete example of a metal album, it would probably help cut down submissions of ineligible bands purely by virtue that some non-metal or pseudo-metal material by a listed band is on the site, and allow those who may not recognize such distinctions to listen for themselves and get a better idea. Or to once and for all justify the inclusion of bands like Rush or Motley Crue that some would argue don't belong here, by indicating "Hey, here's the album(s) that got them accepted in the first place".

Of course, this would probably take a long time to implement since there are just so many bands, and so many releases to look over. Still, I think implementing something along those lines would help a great deal in the long-run.

Look, I really hate to give you the whole "you just know it when you hear it" speech buuuuuut, you just know it when you hear it. That's just part of dealing with bands and genres, being able to recognize and discern what is and is not metal based on the standards of this site.

What people don't see is the internal discussion amongst staff when it comes to bands. Yes, a lot of bands a judged individually by mods and handle with their own discretion. But there are also a large number of bands that get judged by multiple mods before acceptance or rejection. We have our own comments section for bands in the que. And in difficult or borderline cases sometimes it just comes to a general consensus of a handful of moderators.

To give you a really good example of this I'll name King's X. The band had been on the site since 2002 and just last week a moderator was listening to one of their side projects also on the site, it was determined that the side project was not metal, which sparked an inquiry into King's X themselves. Ultimately it was decided by about 10 moderators in a general consensus that the band and most of it's side projects were not metal and thus removed.

Now, to more specifically address your suggestion; the problem I see with this idea is that it isn't always clear cut and opinions differ, even amongst the staff. So how do we say "yes this is the definitive album" for bands, especially when it comes to more controversial bands? Well sure we could maybe come to a general agreement and label that album "the album" but this would take forever and still people would disagree in the end. Take a genre like grindcore, there's a fine line for what is and what isn't metal there. But what I hear you may not, there's loads of subtle nuances that one person will pick up on and another person won't. And this also has the possibility to lead to people asking for an explanation of why said album is metal or not still. Which leads us back to square one, which is being able to understand and identify the characteristics of metal vs not metal by this site's guidelines. Even if I was to show you (not targeting you here just using you as an example cause you posed the question) which album got "X band" accepted would you magically understand the difference in sound with no further explanation? I'm leaning towards most people would not.

Anyway this is just the way I see it. Others may feel differently.

Fair enough, I guess you raise a fair point. To clarify, this isn't exactly for my sake that I raise this question, I've listened to enough stuff to make such distinctions (or at least, I'd like to think I have). It's more an idea to help out newcomers, or those just starting to get into metal in general who may not be as knowledgeable. But I suppose it is more trouble than it's worth.

The thing is, while some of the inclusions here might not be immediately transparent, the vast majority of bands are also metal bands, as opposed to bands with one or more metal releases. If a band has one metal release, chances are they only have metal releases. So concocting such an extra feature solely for a few special cases -a feature essentially pointless for like 95 % of pages- isn't really something that we're willing to consider. For the (relatively) few bands that might seem out of place at first glance, a quick explanation in the versatile additional notes does the trick.