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

Oven Fodder (AKA Why was this review accepted? Provide LINKS, please)
https://forum.metal-archives.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4153		 Page 106 of 239
Author:  hells_unicorn [ Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Azzman's review for Darkthrone's "Soulside Journey" is pretty weak. Maybe 3 brief sentences of extremely vague musical description (weak riffs and vocals, but no description of what makes them weak), and a couple of noticeable spelling errors. This album's review count is also getting a little crowded for something that is, at best, a borderline review in need of some corrected spelling.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=661#6058

The below is an extremely non-descriptive and poorly formatted fan boy fest, it's the only review, but I think it needs to go.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=99616
Author:  Deucalion [ Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=244

Human 666's review. Is that formatting really acceptable?
Author:  failsafeman [ Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
hells_unicorn wrote:
Azzman's review for Darkthrone's "Soulside Journey" is pretty weak. Maybe 3 brief sentences of extremely vague musical description (weak riffs and vocals, but no description of what makes them weak), and a couple of noticeable spelling errors. This album's review count is also getting a little crowded for something that is, at best, a borderline review in need of some corrected spelling.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=661#6058

Agreed, nuked. That one shouldn't have been accepted.

Deucalion wrote:
www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=244

Human 666's review. Is that formatting really acceptable?

No. I'm a stickler for formatting, and that one shouldn't have been accepted either. It's easy enough to bounce annoying reviews like that back with a formatting rejection notice, and that's what should've been done.

Catachtonian's Destruction post is done with, and also I deleted a bunch of reviews from the last page too, but I'm too lazy to confirm them all.
Author:  ~Guest 126069 [ Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=89978

PatientZero's review.

There are about 4 vague sentences that actually describe to music. The rest is unimportant rambling. Hell, I don't even get the fact that this is black metal from this review.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=5404

Remarkably undescriptive.
Author:  Catachthonian [ Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:16 am ]
Post subject: 
Three for Kreator and eight for Sodom, all short and kind of uninformative (and lacking actual content):

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=809#6520 - ddwookie.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=65265#28620 - Hammertime.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=65265#28740 - ProphetOfDeath.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=3094#950 - Disturbing_The_Peace.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=2585#7139 - Janssen.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=2583#612 and http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=3093#612 - PowerMetalGuardian.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=3119#18587 - mak28.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=3124#2505 - MessiahX.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=3109#8829 - overkill67.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 8143#23772 - KlausBarbie.

The last one is for DVD, and I'm not sure about it - it's short, but provides some helpful information, without describing live performance(s), and it's the only review for this DVD.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 4336#16392
Author:  LotF [ Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Is this considered a bad review?
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=957#618

Its the very bottom one, now I know it was from 2003, its actually literally 100 words.

I know reviews were accepted back then with anything, but even Ultraboris' smallest review, its at least 2-3x the size of this one.
Are these kept for their old time purposes? Just wondering. Thanks.
Author:  BastardHead [ Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:23 am ]
Post subject: 
Falconsbane wrote:
(especially atrocious is "People of the Lie; I suppose that such anti-fascist sentiment might have required a courageous stand in the Germany of 1940, but in 1990, it's a bit like a 25 year old standing outside his closet yelling "Fuck you Bogeyman!").


HA! I say Falco's should stay purely for that line.
Author:  hells_unicorn [ Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
BastardHead wrote:
Falconsbane wrote:
(especially atrocious is "People of the Lie; I suppose that such anti-fascist sentiment might have required a courageous stand in the Germany of 1940, but in 1990, it's a bit like a 25 year old standing outside his closet yelling "Fuck you Bogeyman!").


HA! I say Falco's should stay purely for that line.


Although I disagree vehemently with Falco on that album and think the review has very little content, I'd say it should stay because it does make the minimum cut and it is the only dissenting opinion. If someone trashes that album with more content, then it can go.

While I'm at it, here are two more.

Absolute turd burglar out of Azzman if I've ever read one, plenty of spelling errors too.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=218#6058

NightOfTheRealm's (wasn't this guy banned or something?) review for COF's "Damnation and a Day" is another one of those lacking in content and mostly consisting of whining about scene kids crap sandwiches that need to go, especially since this album has 3 or 4 other better written negative reviews.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=15392#729
Author:  Catachthonian [ Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:41 am ]
Post subject: 
Edited my previous post upon re-reading Falconsbane's review.
Author:  EntilZha [ Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
BastardHead wrote:
Falconsbane wrote:
(especially atrocious is "People of the Lie; I suppose that such anti-fascist sentiment might have required a courageous stand in the Germany of 1940, but in 1990, it's a bit like a 25 year old standing outside his closet yelling "Fuck you Bogeyman!").


HA! I say Falco's should stay purely for that line.

On a sidenote...

Writing negative reviews about deathcore in 2008 - it's a bit like a 25 year old standing outside his closet yelling "Fuck you Bogeyman!"
Author:  ~Guest 126069 [ Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
EntilZha wrote:
BastardHead wrote:
Falconsbane wrote:
(especially atrocious is "People of the Lie; I suppose that such anti-fascist sentiment might have required a courageous stand in the Germany of 1940, but in 1990, it's a bit like a 25 year old standing outside his closet yelling "Fuck you Bogeyman!").


HA! I say Falco's should stay purely for that line.

On a sidenote...

Writing negative reviews about deathcore in 2008 - it's a bit like a 25 year old standing outside his closet yelling "Fuck you Bogeyman!"


More like beating a dead horse.
Author:  hells_unicorn [ Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
EntilZha wrote:
BastardHead wrote:
Falconsbane wrote:
(especially atrocious is "People of the Lie; I suppose that such anti-fascist sentiment might have required a courageous stand in the Germany of 1940, but in 1990, it's a bit like a 25 year old standing outside his closet yelling "Fuck you Bogeyman!").


HA! I say Falco's should stay purely for that line.

On a sidenote...

Writing negative reviews about deathcore in 2008 - it's a bit like a 25 year old standing outside his closet yelling "Fuck you Bogeyman!"


What can I say, I don't get out much so I didn't even know about deathcore or the bogeyman until 2008. :p
Author:  Kvisling [ Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
ThrashingMad wrote:
EntilZha wrote:
BastardHead wrote:
Falconsbane wrote:
(especially atrocious is "People of the Lie; I suppose that such anti-fascist sentiment might have required a courageous stand in the Germany of 1940, but in 1990, it's a bit like a 25 year old standing outside his closet yelling "Fuck you Bogeyman!").


HA! I say Falco's should stay purely for that line.

On a sidenote...

Writing negative reviews about deathcore in 2008 - it's a bit like a 25 year old standing outside his closet yelling "Fuck you Bogeyman!"


More like beating a dead horse.


Or wrestling a dead bear.

Idk, someone said this in the chat.
Author:  rexxz [ Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Kvisling wrote:
Or wrestling a dead bear.

Idk, someone said this in the chat.


*raises hand*
Author:  ikuturiso [ Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:21 am ]
Post subject: 
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=158395 - LordBelketraya's review. The whole thing reads as "waah waah darkthrone isn't black metal anymore!!". Worthless.
Author:  failsafeman [ Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:57 am ]
Post subject: 
Everything up until this point has been taken care of.
Author:  hells_unicorn [ Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:52 am ]
Post subject: 
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 2899#96766

The only thing metioned about the song on this single is the vocals, for a few lousy sentences I might add. If this review was a paragraph longer and more examples were given, I'd say it was good enough, but more than 70% of the review is either talking about his anticipation of this song before hearing it or him saying how disappointed he is. We have 2 other equally negative reviews that have far more content than this.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=59385#21281

This review is for an incomplete promotional copy of the single, missing 4 additional tracks. The new rules regarding this were obviously not in place in 2004, but in the interest of fairness this shouldn't stay up.
Author:  overkill666 [ Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1531#60052

Electric Wizards 'Let Us Pray' by Axman

It's very short, and comparing it to what is all ready there, I think it is not necessary.
Author:  EntilZha [ Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
overkill666 wrote:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1531#60052

Electric Wizards 'Let Us Pray' by Axman

It's very short, and comparing it to what is all ready there, I think it is not necessary.

The yentass review is even worse for the terrible formatting.
Author:  MasticateTheNecro [ Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Kvisling wrote:
Or wrestling a dead bear.

Roflcopter!

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=15392
GoddessOfDeathMetal. This review just reeks of immaturity and all credibility is lost. She gives no musical description whatsoever and tries just a bit too hard to be funny. Sick, and not in a good way...

Edit: and it makes the archives look bad to have such reviews. People will come and see how ignorant that review is (which could happen often for CC is a fairly mainstream band) and assume that's what we're about.
Author:  failsafeman [ Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
I CAME, I SAW, I NUKED REVIEWS

Everything up until this point has been taken care of. Keep 'em coming!
Author:  Scourge441 [ Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=10395#29088

Uhh... is he trying to make a point by constantly referring to the band as Suffocation? Because it's clearly a Decrepit Birth album he's reviewing. He could, y'know, just say "these guys rip off Suffocation, and this album is derivative."
Author:  ~Guest 126069 [ Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Scourge441 wrote:
http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=10395#29088

Uhh... is he trying to make a point by constantly referring to the band as Suffocation? Because it's clearly a Decrepit Birth album he's reviewing. He could, y'know, just say "these guys rip off Suffocation, and this album is derivative."


He's said before that it was just a clever way of saying the album is total Suffo worship.
Author:  Scourge441 [ Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
I thought that might be the case. Carry on, then.
Author:  zacmenta [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:09 am ]
Post subject: 
A Martyr AD album review:

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=43321

The review by SoulSeekJay.

An excerpt:
"Every fan of metal should give this a shot. Are you one of those people that says "hardcore, NO WAY!!, I dont listen to HARDCORE and never will!

This ones for YOU!!!!"

It just reeks of fanboyism, and is generally incredibly irritating to read. Some typos, dodgy punctuation, and multiple exclamation marks after words that are fully capitalised (I cannot fucking stand it). It offers little information, and certainly nothing objective. He describes a song as a "shattering mosh hammer" for fuck's sake. Admittedly he was talking about a song on another album, but still.
Author:  Gutterscream [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
overkill666 wrote:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1531#60052

Electric Wizards 'Let Us Pray' by Axman

It's very short, and comparing it to what is all ready there, I think it is not necessary.


Axed.
Author:  PatientZero [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
ThrashingMad wrote:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=89978

PatientZero's review.

There are about 4 vague sentences that actually describe to music. The rest is unimportant rambling. Hell, I don't even get the fact that this is black metal from this review.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=5404

Remarkably undescriptive.


Obviously I'm going to be biased because it's my review, but I really don't think there is anything to do that demo past what i described.
Author:  ~Guest 126069 [ Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
PatientZero wrote:
ThrashingMad wrote:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=89978

PatientZero's review.

There are about 4 vague sentences that actually describe to music. The rest is unimportant rambling. Hell, I don't even get the fact that this is black metal from this review.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=5404

Remarkably undescriptive.


Obviously I'm going to be biased because it's my review, but I really don't think there is anything to do that demo past what i described.


I didn't say it was biased, I said it was undescripitive and bad. You spent most of the review talking about the band's image which doesn't really matter when it comes to reviewing their material.
Author:  EntilZha [ Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
ThrashingMad wrote:
I didn't say it was biased

He didn't say you said it was biased. If your capacity for reading comprehension can't even master posts on a forum I think you should refrain from judging reviews in the future.
Author:  Baletempest [ Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=106559#4686

There's hardly any musical description bar 2 or 3 rather vague lines that frankly leave a rather confusing impression and relies quite heavily upon the reader having listened to the previous album. Other than that it's basically a thinly written rant about how this album is a disappointment because it's not as original as the last one (even though it doesn't really explain this).
Author:  ~Guest 126069 [ Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
EntilZha wrote:
ThrashingMad wrote:
I didn't say it was biased

He didn't say you said it was biased. If your capacity for reading comprehension can't even master posts on a forum I think you should refrain from judging reviews in the future.


He said "Obviously I'm going to be biased because it's my review", and if that wasn't a direct retort to some non-existent statment that I made about how his review was biased, then I don't know why he included it in his post.
Author:  EntilZha [ Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
ThrashingMad wrote:
EntilZha wrote:
ThrashingMad wrote:
I didn't say it was biased

He didn't say you said it was biased. If your capacity for reading comprehension can't even master posts on a forum I think you should refrain from judging reviews in the future.


He said "Obviously I'm going to be biased because it's my review", and if that wasn't a direct retort to some non-existent statment that I made about how his review was biased, then I don't know why he included it in his post.

That non-existent statement of yours really does only exist in your far too active imagination. That he said he is biased about the deletion of his review really meant quite literally that he is biased about the deletion of his review. It had absolutely nothing to do with what you said about his review. I'm still kind of astonished that you still lack the reading comprehension to get it, after it has been explained to you twice. Well, now I explained it for the third time, maybe now you'll get it.
Author:  ~Guest 126069 [ Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
EntilZha wrote:
That non-existent statement of yours really does only exist in your far too active imagination. That he said he is biased about the deletion of his review really meant quite literally that he is biased about the deletion of his review. It had absolutely nothing to do with what you said about his review. I'm still kind of astonished that you still lack the reading comprehension to get it, after it has been explained to you twice. Well, now I explained it for the third time, maybe now you'll get it.


Right. Now I see where I was mistaken. I thought he was defending the presence of a bias in his review. I guess I mistook the tone his post was written in. My apologies to both of you.
Author:  Nightgaunt [ Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:06 am ]
Post subject: 
Judged to this point. Few deletions. People are getting ahead of themselves again.
Author:  JabukJanezBanana [ Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:51 am ]
Post subject: 
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=2797#6292 by Bathym

That one is, in my opinion, unreadable.
Author:  Lord_Jotun [ Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
JabukJanezBanana wrote:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=2797#6292 by Bathym

That one is, in my opinion, unreadable.


Ha, looks like one of his abortions managed to remain unnoticed until now.
I remember this fellow, he posted something like 20 very negative reviews in a couple of days, and most didn't last long on this site - this one is actuallys urprisingly coherent by his standards.
His usual format would be like "this album is praised as some sort of black metal masterpiece, and I can't see why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly the same as *insert long list of BM bands that sound NOTHING like each other*!!!! The riffs are overrated, vocals are overrated, the lyrics are overrated, and the production??? MOst overrated mixing job I've ever heard!!!!!!!!!"
Author:  failsafeman [ Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Gone. If you people see reviews with obvious formatting and/or repeated abuse of annoying style/grammar/spelling crap (missing spaces after commas, excess exclamation points, caps, typos, etc.) report them right away; they're not only poor reviews but also eyesores.
Author:  Nhorf [ Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:16 am ]
Post subject: 
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=14928#883
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=7909#883
Two reviews written by DeathsColdEmbrace. Poor formatting.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=7909#364
J_Paragon_S. I don't think we need this one, since there are already almost twenty reviews for this record.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=7909#267
Snxke. Another Deliverance review that has to go.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=14928#304
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=7909#267
Demon_of_the_Fall.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=7909#1150
Paradox. Lame review, if you ask me.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=7909#1991
Langstondrive.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=7909#1657
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=14928#1657
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=140#1657
HealthySonicDiet.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=7909#2325
CrowTrobot. Short and uninteresting.
Author:  Nhorf [ Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:34 am ]
Post subject: 
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=140#404
dragons_secrets. POOR formatting.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=130#30
ironasinmaiden. This review isn't as BAD as the others, though.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=130#102370
Metal_Rocks.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=14928#170
HawkMoon.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=14928#6766
OnceLostHorizon.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=14928#38526
TaXi18.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 928#119370
hanzell. Very bad one.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=141#7181
CrimsonFloyd. Despite the review is pretty well written, it is just a big wall of text.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=138#14
Esoteric. On the poor side too.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=137#11102
Opeth666. OH MY GOD.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=14928#1382
Xenocide. Another terrible one, indeed,

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=14928#1393
SufferingOverdue.
Author:  Nhorf [ Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:47 am ]
Post subject: 
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=498#31
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=492#31
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=487#31
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=495#31
Vic. All pretty bad, I think.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=492#7139
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=529#7139
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=487#7139
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=495#7139
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=214#7139
Janssen. All of them are terrible, in my opinion.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=214#561
Wez.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=487#7841
BailsofDoom.

So, 3 posts full of bad reviews... I'm tired now. :p
Page 106 of 239 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/