Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
TrooperOfSteel
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:30 am
Posts: 17
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:25 pm 
 

First off, I love this site. I've been a member for a decade or so. As an ex-reviewer, ex-online dj and current host of my own community radio metal show since 2012, Metal-Archives is vital for information of everything related to metal.

Over the years, I've really just had 2 gripes. 1) Evey metal band should be listed in this website, regardless of metal genre. It's all metal, so why does this site segregate genres? I don't get it.

And 2), the amount of terribly written and obvious negative bias reviews (if you can call them that) up here on this site, that are nothing more than someone venting on a band they hate. There is nothing constructive, nothing informative by these "reviews". Reviews should be completely unbiased with no personal attachments to them. Metal-Archives have people that go over submitted reviews that have to adhere to certain standards/policies, etc, etc, which is completely fine. So why then do they allow these downright attacks of bands, someone calls a review, to be given the all-clear to be published on this site? It's dragging down the integrity and high regard of this site.

There are examples all over this site, that contain these awful reviews, but one just has to go to the biggest band of all to find the tall poppy syndrome and "the band you love to hate" styled reviews at its worst - Metallica.

I get "free speech" and all that, but allowing these writers to say nothing informative about an album, nothing constructive and overall doesnt help in knowing whether someone should buy an album based on what was written; is just damaging this site's credibility. Negative bias opinions are not how you write reviews. If someone wants to bag a band/album purely cos they hate them, go start up a damn blog and write to your hearts content.

I would like to see these kinds of bad reviews taken off this site please. I understand that it would be a mammoth task, but if you need a hand, I'm willing to help. This site needs a long overdue overhaul of shit reviews.

Top
 Profile  
Psyche_Dome
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:31 am
Posts: 135
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:21 am 
 

TrooperOfSteel wrote:
First off, I love this site. I've been a member for a decade or so. As an ex-reviewer, ex-online dj and current host of my own community radio metal show since 2012, Metal-Archives is vital for information of everything related to metal.

Over the years, I've really just had 2 gripes. 1) Evey metal band should be listed in this website, regardless of metal genre. It's all metal, so why does this site segregate genres? I don't get it.

And 2), the amount of terribly written and obvious negative bias reviews (if you can call them that) up here on this site, that are nothing more than someone venting on a band they hate. There is nothing constructive, nothing informative by these "reviews". Reviews should be completely unbiased with no personal attachments to them. Metal-Archives have people that go over submitted reviews that have to adhere to certain standards/policies, etc, etc, which is completely fine. So why then do they allow these downright attacks of bands, someone calls a review, to be given the all-clear to be published on this site? It's dragging down the integrity and high regard of this site.

There are examples all over this site, that contain these awful reviews, but one just has to go to the biggest band of all to find the tall poppy syndrome and "the band you love to hate" styled reviews at its worst - Metallica.

I get "free speech" and all that, but allowing these writers to say nothing informative about an album, nothing constructive and overall doesnt help in knowing whether someone should buy an album based on what was written; is just damaging this site's credibility. Negative bias opinions are not how you write reviews. If someone wants to bag a band/album purely cos they hate them, go start up a damn blog and write to your hearts content.

I would like to see these kinds of bad reviews taken off this site please. I understand that it would be a mammoth task, but if you need a hand, I'm willing to help. This site needs a long overdue overhaul of shit reviews.


Perhaps, post a few examples.

These reviews don't need to be 'unbiased'. We're not the Rolling Stone magazine, who might consider how to review a band (i.e. Metallica) based on how popular they are in the mainstream, thus considering how to distribute and sell more copies. Mainstream reviews can be the most 'biased' due to professional courtesy, and because they want that band on a front cover, and they want that exclusive interview.

Therefore, 'biased' reviews are an important facet; they give honest opinions.

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 238
Location: Behind the wall of fire
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:28 am 
 

TrooperOfSteel wrote:
And the amount of terribly written and obvious negative bias reviews (if you can call them that) up here on this site, that are nothing more than someone venting on a band they hate. There is nothing constructive, nothing informative by these "reviews". Reviews should be completely unbiased with no personal attachments to them.


Eh, I'm kind of half with you and half not. Of course, if a review is terribly written or if its content has no value, then it shouldn't be kept as a review. That said, if someone really hates any band and can adequately explain the reasons why, I don't think there's anything we can do. I mean, I see more ecstatic reviews that praise a band and give 100% without really saying why the album justifies the score. If someone just writes a review to insult a band, that would probably be recognized as a "troll review" and hopefully rejected. However, if they offer a critique along with their insults, I think they are within their rights.

It's the last part of your comment (quoted above) that I can't agree with. How can a music review not be biased? I like heavy metal more than I like Argentinian folk music, so my comments will be biased towards heavy metal. Likewise, if I can't stand Metallica because I think their riffs are boring (for instance), I'm entitled to that opinion and my review must reflect the true feelings. Even if you try to take the "I" out of the review, every band is a subjective listen and can't be reviewed according to purely objective criteria. That would take the human element out of the whole thing, surely?

Top
 Profile  
TrooperOfSteel
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:30 am
Posts: 17
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:15 am 
 

Psyche_Dome wrote:
TrooperOfSteel wrote:
First off, I love this site. I've been a member for a decade or so. As an ex-reviewer, ex-online dj and current host of my own community radio metal show since 2012, Metal-Archives is vital for information of everything related to metal.

Over the years, I've really just had 2 gripes. 1) Evey metal band should be listed in this website, regardless of metal genre. It's all metal, so why does this site segregate genres? I don't get it.

And 2), the amount of terribly written and obvious negative bias reviews (if you can call them that) up here on this site, that are nothing more than someone venting on a band they hate. There is nothing constructive, nothing informative by these "reviews". Reviews should be completely unbiased with no personal attachments to them. Metal-Archives have people that go over submitted reviews that have to adhere to certain standards/policies, etc, etc, which is completely fine. So why then do they allow these downright attacks of bands, someone calls a review, to be given the all-clear to be published on this site? It's dragging down the integrity and high regard of this site.

There are examples all over this site, that contain these awful reviews, but one just has to go to the biggest band of all to find the tall poppy syndrome and "the band you love to hate" styled reviews at its worst - Metallica.

I get "free speech" and all that, but allowing these writers to say nothing informative about an album, nothing constructive and overall doesnt help in knowing whether someone should buy an album based on what was written; is just damaging this site's credibility. Negative bias opinions are not how you write reviews. If someone wants to bag a band/album purely cos they hate them, go start up a damn blog and write to your hearts content.

I would like to see these kinds of bad reviews taken off this site please. I understand that it would be a mammoth task, but if you need a hand, I'm willing to help. This site needs a long overdue overhaul of shit reviews.


Perhaps, post a few examples.

These reviews don't need to be 'unbiased'. We're not the Rolling Stone magazine, who might consider how to review a band (i.e. Metallica) based on how popular they are in the mainstream, thus considering how to distribute and sell more copies. Mainstream reviews can be the most 'biased' due to professional courtesy, and because they want that band on a front cover, and they want that exclusive interview.

Therefore, 'biased' reviews are an important facet; they give honest opinions.


I feel some biased reviews for either the positive and negative can be misconstrued due to the absolute love or hatred for the band. A person who hates the band for whatever reason (usually a poor one) will emphasize their comments/opinions to get their agenda across. Blinded by rage you might say. Same goes for overly positive reviews where the writer feels the band can do no wrong, no matter what. That's not honestly, not really. I understand what you mean with professional reviews for mainstream bands and professional courtesy...i just used Metallica as a typical example

Top
 Profile  
TrooperOfSteel
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:30 am
Posts: 17
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:28 am 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
TrooperOfSteel wrote:
And the amount of terribly written and obvious negative bias reviews (if you can call them that) up here on this site, that are nothing more than someone venting on a band they hate. There is nothing constructive, nothing informative by these "reviews". Reviews should be completely unbiased with no personal attachments to them.


Eh, I'm kind of half with you and half not. Of course, if a review is terribly written or if its content has no value, then it shouldn't be kept as a review. That said, if someone really hates any band and can adequately explain the reasons why, I don't think there's anything we can do. I mean, I see more ecstatic reviews that praise a band and give 100% without really saying why the album justifies the score. If someone just writes a review to insult a band, that would probably be recognized as a "troll review" and hopefully rejected. However, if they offer a critique along with their insults, I think they are within their rights.

It's the last part of your comment (quoted above) that I can't agree with. How can a music review not be biased? I like heavy metal more than I like Argentinian folk music, so my comments will be biased towards heavy metal. Likewise, if I can't stand Metallica because I think their riffs are boring (for instance), I'm entitled to that opinion and my review must reflect the true feelings. Even if you try to take the "I" out of the review, every band is a subjective listen and can't be reviewed according to purely objective criteria. That would take the human element out of the whole thing, surely?


When I write reviews I come from the angle that I am not a fan of the band in question. Sometimes it's good to review an album of a band from a metal genre you normally don't listen to. E.G black metal. If you dont like black metal, the writer's bias against the genre will normally come thru (i cant stand the vocals, i cant understand what they are saying, it feels out of tune, so therefore i give it a 40/100, etc). But a good writer/reviewer should be able to stay neutral and rate the album based on merit, pure and simple.

I've seen quite a few reviews on here that are just deplorable and must have gotten thru before this crackdown came about where you have to adhere to the terms and conditions. But i still see bad reviews where they bag everything and only justify it with a line or 2. A loophole in the system. The critique barely comes up to standard. I can understand just how many reviews come thru every day and how tedious it can get having to go over them with a fine tooth comb and maybe some of these poor reviews that would normally get rejected, slip thru.

Top
 Profile  
caspian
Wanderer of the Wastes

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:29 pm
Posts: 6268
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:24 am 
 

Far more terribly written positive reviews on the site than negative reviews. I reckon we oughta get rid of those first. Honestly the idea of "bias" is completely laughable. Everyone gets into an album with a bunch of preconceived ideas, and they rarely get particularly challenged. This happens both ways.
_________________
https://strangercountry.bandcamp.com/al ... the-chebar new album! Power shoegaze? Dream-doom???

Top
 Profile  
TrooperOfSteel
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:30 am
Posts: 17
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:20 am 
 

caspian wrote:
Far more terribly written positive reviews on the site than negative reviews. I reckon we oughta get rid of those first. Honestly the idea of "bias" is completely laughable. Everyone gets into an album with a bunch of preconceived ideas, and they rarely get particularly challenged. This happens both ways.


I'm for both, doesnt bother me. I feel its easier to find the terribly written negative reviews, but im sure there are many for the other side too. I'm not so sure about getting into an album with a bunch of preconceived ideas. There were some albums sent to me over the years of bands ive never heard of and went into it knowing nothing, which sometimes can be the best way. Zero expectations.

Top
 Profile  
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 25818
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:37 am 
 

Reviews can't be "completely unbiased" - pretty dumb statement. The whole idea is that you have an opinion one way or the other.

Honestly this is a free site that lets everyone who wants to post reviews do so. The quality isn't always sky high, but that's what the site is. All this stuff about deleting reviews makes you sound like you just don't agree with the reviews and want them gone for that reason.
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: House of Cards Season 6 reviews, ongoing

Top
 Profile  
TrooperOfSteel
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:30 am
Posts: 17
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:13 am 
 

Empyreal wrote:
Reviews can't be "completely unbiased" - pretty dumb statement. The whole idea is that you have an opinion one way or the other.

Honestly this is a free site that lets everyone who wants to post reviews do so. The quality isn't always sky high, but that's what the site is. All this stuff about deleting reviews makes you sound like you just don't agree with the reviews and want them gone for that reason.


They actually can be unbiased. Bias comes from the like or dislike of a band/album. You can give opinions but they can be done without bias for one or the other. Maybe I just have the knack for it and it comes easily to me.

Everyone can post reviews, yes, but they have to pass some standards set out by this site before it gets approved. The quality isn't always sky high i know, but there are some real shockers in here that you wonder how the hell they got thru. Of course we aren't all going to agree with what people say in their review, that's not the issue at all. My issue is reviews that contain blatant band bashing for no other reason but for the writer to get his/hers jollies from bagging a band and wrapping it up in a "review".

Top
 Profile  
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 25818
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:29 am 
 

If you mean going into an album predetermined to hate it, well, sure, that's bias. But it doesn't mean the review is bad or worthless necessarily.

You can't claim to know someone's intent or why they wrote a review. Sometimes I guess it's obvious, but not nearly as often as you seem to think.
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: House of Cards Season 6 reviews, ongoing

Top
 Profile  
TrooperOfSteel
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:30 am
Posts: 17
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:35 am 
 

Empyreal wrote:
If you mean going into an album predetermined to hate it, well, sure, that's bias. But it doesn't mean the review is bad or worthless necessarily.

You can't claim to know someone's intent or why they wrote a review. Sometimes I guess it's obvious, but not nearly as often as you seem to think.


Agreed, there are some that show negative bias, but still has some valid points or just gets away with a decent review. I'm talking about negative bias with nothing valid, no factual points and no reason other than "it fucking sux" etc. With nothing written of value, those are the ones that need to go.

Sometimes you can know someone's intent, just look for the patterns in their reviews. Click on their name, see the list of reviews and look at the pattern of bands they consistently write reviews for and consistently bag everytime without fail, giving 0% or some idiotic negative biased low score with no real reason as to why.

Top
 Profile  
BastardHead
Worse than the PMRC

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:53 pm
Posts: 8890
Location: Elgin, Illinois
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:17 am 
 

If a review is written poorly, we'll take care of it. If a review is mean to a band you like, grow up. There are far, faaaaar more awful reviews written from slavering nutso fanboys than there are of grumpy old men trashing Opeth or tryhard noobs attacking Metallica. So basically if somebody is more upset about the negative reviews, it is 100% of the time because of hurt feelings and we frankly do not care.
_________________
Don't forget to vote in the MA Album of the Year 2018 Poll!
Lair of the Bastard: LATEST REVIEW: Wombripper - From the Depths of Flesh
The Outer RIM - Uatism: The dogs bark in street slang

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2219
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:26 pm 
 

I think that the reviewing system is fine how it is, and is probably about as "unbiased" as could be possible if such a thing were to exist. People can honestly express their opinions and often will act as unintentional counterbalances to the random troll (*cough* bitterman) or the pretentious fanboy that considers giving a 97% to their favorite band's weakest album to be a low score. I kinda get where TrooperOfSteel is coming from in that I felt the same way the first couple years I was on here, but I'll take the occasional douche-bag taking a dump on my favorite band(s) over having a dry, uninteresting system like the ones they have over at All Music.

Psyche_Dome wrote:
These reviews don't need to be 'unbiased'. We're not the Rolling Stone magazine, who might consider how to review a band (i.e. Metallica) based on how popular they are in the mainstream, thus considering how to distribute and sell more copies.


I'm not sure how you intended this analogy, but Rolling Stone is the exact opposite of "unbiased", they are a bunch of bitter hippies who shit on anything that doesn't conform to their narrow little classic rock bubble and then will pander to other popular styles to expand their readership. I haven't perused one of their music critiques in well over 15 years, but I've received little indication that they've been able to finally move on from the fact that Woodstock is over and that there are people out there who prefer showers to Neil Young.

Empyreal wrote:
If you mean going into an album predetermined to hate it, well, sure, that's bias. But it doesn't mean the review is bad or worthless necessarily.


I kinda did this with my early Mastodon reviews, though it was more that I was annoyed at their douche-bag fans thinking that their hip new craze was infinitely superior to everybody else, than it was me looking to outright hate all of their music (some of their later stuff agreed with me a tad). I don't necessarily think it is always necessary for someone to approach an album in a complete state of dispassion, and I'm not sure how often this even occurs with anyone either in a positive or a negative direction since most people doing reviews have had a fair degree of experience with the genre.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)


Last edited by hells_unicorn on Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Diamhea
Eats and Spits Corpses

Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:46 pm
Posts: 9275
Location: At the Heat of Winter
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:35 pm 
 

We simply make sure reviews are properly formatted/grammatically sound and describe the music sufficiently. It isnt up to us to play babysitter and make sure bands arent being "wronged" along with other subjective milieu. In fact, the moment we start moderating at such a level, the site instantly loses a lot of the integrity you are claiming the current standards are costing it.
_________________
nuclearskull wrote:
Leave a steaming, stinking Rotting Repulsive Rotting Corpse = LIVE YOUNG - DIE FREE and move on to the NEXT form of yourself....or just be a fat Wal-Mart Mcdonalds pc of shit what do I give a fuck what you do.

Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
Xlxlx
Argentinian Asado Supremacy

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:16 pm
Posts: 7821
Location: The Land Down Under (no, not THAT one)
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:34 pm 
 

gasmask_colostomy wrote:
I like heavy metal more than I like Argentinian folk music (...)

Don't worry, only decrepit Argentinian geezers who like to pretend they're gauchos like that shit. I would know, I'm Argentinian.
TrooperOfSteel wrote:
When I write reviews I come from the angle that I am not a fan of the band in question. Sometimes it's good to review an album of a band from a metal genre you normally don't listen to. E.G black metal. If you dont like black metal, the writer's bias against the genre will normally come thru (i cant stand the vocals, i cant understand what they are saying, it feels out of tune, so therefore i give it a 40/100, etc). But a good writer/reviewer should be able to stay neutral and rate the album based on merit, pure and simple.

Art has no objective merit, so the only merit music has is the one you ascribe to it. An album might be full of virtuous playing and out of the box songwriting techniques, but if I find the songs themselves annoying/dull/whatever none of that will matter and I'll still give it a bad rating.

I have to agree with BH in that every single time someone makes a thread such as this, it's because some big bad meanie reviewer took a dump on a band they like. TrooperOfSteel, you're not fooling anyone; grow up and learn to live with the fact that not everyone is gonna like the same things as you.
_________________
Napero wrote:
(...) Bolt Thrower is to the soul what coffee is to the earthly shell.

Top
 Profile  
dystopia4
Thumbman

Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:47 pm
Posts: 4376
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:52 pm 
 

The idea that music criticism should be "unbiased" is indeed laughable, and if you don't understand why you're not going to get it anyway.
_________________
Last FM

Top
 Profile  
Psyche_Dome
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:31 am
Posts: 135
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:14 pm 
 

hells_unicorn wrote:
I'm not sure how you intended this analogy, but Rolling Stone is the exact opposite of "unbiased", they are a bunch of bitter hippies who shit on anything that doesn't conform to their narrow little classic rock bubble and then will pander to other popular styles to expand their readership. I haven't perused one of their music critiques in well over 15 years, but I've received little indication that they've been able to finally move on from the fact that Woodstock is over and that there are people out there who prefer showers to Neil Young.


That was my point; they base a review on the popularity in order to expand their readership... 'biased' and disingenuous; a fucking awful organization.

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2219
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:58 pm 
 

Psyche_Dome wrote:
hells_unicorn wrote:
I'm not sure how you intended this analogy, but Rolling Stone is the exact opposite of "unbiased", they are a bunch of bitter hippies who shit on anything that doesn't conform to their narrow little classic rock bubble and then will pander to other popular styles to expand their readership. I haven't perused one of their music critiques in well over 15 years, but I've received little indication that they've been able to finally move on from the fact that Woodstock is over and that there are people out there who prefer showers to Neil Young.


That was my point; they base a review on the popularity in order to expand their readership... 'biased' and disingenuous; a fucking awful organization.


Agreed, I wasn't clear on how you meant to tie Rolling Stone in with the whole "unbiased" myth (I've heard people in the past claim them as an "objective" music journalism outlet), I'm of the same opinion as you regarding that ass-wipe of a publication.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)

Top
 Profile  
TrooperOfSteel
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:30 am
Posts: 17
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:16 am 
 

Xlxlx wrote:
gasmask_colostomy wrote:
I like heavy metal more than I like Argentinian folk music (...)

Don't worry, only decrepit Argentinian geezers who like to pretend they're gauchos like that shit. I would know, I'm Argentinian.
TrooperOfSteel wrote:
When I write reviews I come from the angle that I am not a fan of the band in question. Sometimes it's good to review an album of a band from a metal genre you normally don't listen to. E.G black metal. If you dont like black metal, the writer's bias against the genre will normally come thru (i cant stand the vocals, i cant understand what they are saying, it feels out of tune, so therefore i give it a 40/100, etc). But a good writer/reviewer should be able to stay neutral and rate the album based on merit, pure and simple.

Art has no objective merit, so the only merit music has is the one you ascribe to it. An album might be full of virtuous playing and out of the box songwriting techniques, but if I find the songs themselves annoying/dull/whatever none of that will matter and I'll still give it a bad rating.

I have to agree with BH in that every single time someone makes a thread such as this, it's because some big bad meanie reviewer took a dump on a band they like. TrooperOfSteel, you're not fooling anyone; grow up and learn to live with the fact that not everyone is gonna like the same things as you.


Unfortunately, you have it all wrong, mate. Ive been a member here for 10 years. If I wanted to complain every time I saw a review bashing a band I like, it would have happened a very long time ago. I couldn't care less if someone doesn't like a band I do, life's too short to crack the shits over people who doesn't agree with my opinions or doesn't like the same things that I do. I actually like it that we are all different.

The fact that you think im "not fooling anyone" with this post and "need to grow up" blah blah blah just shows how far off the mark you are, mate. You obviously don't get what I'm trying to get across. Please go have another read of it and try again. I'm for the site. not myself. If the site officially doesn't have an issue with people putting up the types of reviews I'm describing, then that's that. The readers are smart enough to know the difference between an honest, balanced and fair review for both the positive and negative, based on the opinions of the writer, over one's that are just out to serve their own agenda, or to stir the pot or have their ego's stroked. I merely wanted the site's and the members opinions on the subject and I think I got that.

Top
 Profile  
Napero
GedankenPanzer

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:16 pm
Posts: 8638
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:44 am 
 

You still haven't posted any examples of what you mean, TrooperOfSteel.
_________________
Chest wounds suck (when properly inflicted).
-Butch-

Top
 Profile  
TrooperOfSteel
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:30 am
Posts: 17
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:40 am 
 

Napero wrote:
You still haven't posted any examples of what you mean, TrooperOfSteel.


I was planning on it, but then changed my mind for 2 reasons. 1) I think someone from the site made it clear that they were ok with it, so no point arguing my case anymore and 2) anything i put up will most likely go down a road that it doesnt need to, people will disagree, argue, etc. I dont have time for that Napero

Top
 Profile  
Five_Nails
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:34 pm
Posts: 451
PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:05 am 
 

TrooperOfSteel wrote:
Napero wrote:
You still haven't posted any examples of what you mean, TrooperOfSteel.


I was planning on it, but then changed my mind for 2 reasons. 1) I think someone from the site made it clear that they were ok with it, so no point arguing my case anymore and 2) anything i put up will most likely go down a road that it doesnt need to, people will disagree, argue, etc. I dont have time for that Napero


So you have all the time in the world to disagree with how this site is run and want to be heard out about it but you can't be bothered to hear out anyone disagreeing with your grievance? Isn't that about as silly as saying that a good number of people who voluntarily submit their opinions of the music on this site simply shouldn't because they're too close to their own opinions?

Looks to me like OP just wants to lock his own thread because he didn't get what he wanted. What a day and age we're in.

The folks asking for specific examples are asking for a good reason. If you just took a minute to go through the list of stickied threads you'd have seen the Oven Fodder forum. Right there you could have your crusade and enjoy it too rather than request the mods do more than they already do.


TrooperofSteel wrote:
I would like to see these kinds of bad reviews taken off this site please. I understand that it would be a mammoth task, but if you need a hand, I'm willing to help. This site needs a long overdue overhaul of shit reviews.


https://www.metal-archives.com/board/vi ... f=4&t=4153


TrooperOfSteel wrote:
I merely wanted the site's and the members opinions on the subject and I think I got that.


That doesn't add up with the initial request but hey, I guess it's lock time now for this one.
_________________
I'm Nobody! Who are you?
Are you - Nobody - too?
-Emily Dickinson

Top
 Profile  
Diamhea
Eats and Spits Corpses

Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:46 pm
Posts: 9275
Location: At the Heat of Winter
PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:00 pm 
 

Meh, no real point in locking it, but the thread served its purpose and ran an expected course. The current review standard is as airtight as it has ever been. If someone wants to discuss the specifics of the moderating process, PM me. And remember, we can always reassess old submissions. Hell me and BH have removed hundreds of old crappy two-sentence wonders and such.
_________________
nuclearskull wrote:
Leave a steaming, stinking Rotting Repulsive Rotting Corpse = LIVE YOUNG - DIE FREE and move on to the NEXT form of yourself....or just be a fat Wal-Mart Mcdonalds pc of shit what do I give a fuck what you do.

Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
TrooperOfSteel
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:30 am
Posts: 17
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:20 am 
 

Napero wrote:
You still haven't posted any examples of what you mean, TrooperOfSteel.


I was planning on it, but then changed my mind for 2 reasons. 1) I think someone from the site made it clear that they were ok with it, so no point arguing my case anymore and 2) anything i put up will most likely go down a road that it doesnt need to, people will disagree, argue, etc. I dont have time for that Napero[/quote]

So you have all the time in the world to disagree with how this site is run and want to be heard out about it but you can't be bothered to hear out anyone disagreeing with your grievance? Isn't that about as silly as saying that a good number of people who voluntarily submit their opinions of the music on this site simply shouldn't because they're too close to their own opinions?

Looks to me like OP just wants to lock his own thread because he didn't get what he wanted. What a day and age we're in.

The folks asking for specific examples are asking for a good reason. If you just took a minute to go through the list of stickied threads you'd have seen the Oven Fodder forum. Right there you could have your crusade and enjoy it too rather than request the mods do more than they already do.


TrooperOfSteel wrote:
I merely wanted the site's and the members opinions on the subject and I think I got that.


Five_Nails wrote:
That doesn't add up with the initial request but hey, I guess it's lock time now for this one.


If you go back and see a mod who looks like they have something to do with going over submitted reviews saying they are fine with it (the site), then what else can I do? I actually have no time for all this, i'm actually digging into time for other things, but i've been wanting to put this out there for a while now. Reading just one more crap ass review must have finally made me do it. I'm still happy to become a mod and help going thru these old reviews and toss the shitty ones out as I feel I owe this site after all they have done and just how often I use it. Time is limited though, with my own community radio metal show, work and undergoing chemotherapy (and all the side affects that come with it) post stage 3 cancer removal.

Top
 Profile  
Napero
GedankenPanzer

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:16 pm
Posts: 8638
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:41 am 
 

OK, this thread went pretty much nowhere: no examples of biased reviews, and, thus, no concrete discussion or outcomes, just a general feeling of people being unfair to bands, I guess. And we are not in the business of opinion policing or guessing reviewers' motives. Time to close the lid on this one.
_________________
Chest wounds suck (when properly inflicted).
-Butch-

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

  Print view
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group