| 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 107 of 239 |
| Author: | saintinhell [ Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=3290#43754 Much too abbreviated - drumming is intense and the vocals are brutal, huh I already know that, it's fucking Demolition Hammer after all. And the fact that he refers to um...trash really was the last straw for me. |
|
| Author: | saintinhell [ Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1399#1080 A little better but once again doesn't tell me a great deal about the album, just that it's good headbangable thrash. |
|
| Author: | Catachthonian [ Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nhorf wrote: 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. No. Fucking. Way. Although they're all short, they describe the music well, and after reading I have a good idea of how the album sounds. |
|
| Author: | caspian [ Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Looking at Vic's "Master of Reality" review, that album could do with some real cleaning in general. Vic's reviews, while not bad, are completely redundant, considering just how many higher quality reviews there are on all those Sabbath releases. |
|
| Author: | Abominatrix [ Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
caspian wrote: Looking at Vic's "Master of Reality" review, that album could do with some real cleaning in general.
Vic's reviews, while not bad, are completely redundant, considering just how many higher quality reviews there are on all those Sabbath releases. Well, as they're all quite descriptive and are among the earliest very solid contributions to the site (although many of them actually go back to the 1990s) I really think they ought to stay. |
|
| Author: | failsafeman [ Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ok, everything deemed nuke-worthy from the last two pages is gone. There were some server issues while I was trying to delete them, meaning for some fucking annoying reason I'd delete a review, only to find it hadn't actually been deleted. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I got all those that didn't go through the first time. I nuked a couple of Vic reviews that really were weak, but a couple of others that were stronger I left. For the last two guys who linked reviews, remember to include the NAME of the reviewer along with the link. For some annoying reason, sometimes those links don't send you right to the specific review (even if you put the numbers in right) and I have to guess which one you mean. I can't wait for a new server. |
|
| Author: | hells_unicorn [ Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=96901#51434 We've got three other negative reviews on here, one that is pretty close to this score, and quite frankly the entire review amounts to nothing more than rambling about obvious characteristics of the album hit on by other reviewers. http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=5830#51434 There is some content, but he is so damned general that it's on the borderline, it's definitely better than the other review I mentioned above. http://www.metal-archives.com/userrevie ... NoSoup4you I'm providing the link to the guy's review list in case it is standard policy to nuke semi-passable reviews written by an individual who was dursted (I'm not sure why, if anyone can enlighten me on the details of NoSoup4You's ejection from the archives). http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=208#1353 It's the one with the lowest score, but it's way too short and conveys very little content. |
|
| Author: | Wra1th1s [ Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=16299 optimuszgrime's review needs to go. Basically says the same thing as the two other 90% reviews but more minimal. Plus the formatting makes my eyes bleed. |
|
| Author: | NoSoup4you [ Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Was dursted due to circumstances concerning Underoath's addition to the archives. |
|
| Author: | Witcher [ Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
NoSoup4you wrote: Was dursted due to circumstances concerning Underoath's addition to the archives.
Those "circumstances" were, that you have vandalized their page. It would not need further comments, other than the explanation below, but your use of such euphemisms for your behaviour leaves me no other choice. Anyway, no review gets deleted just because a reviewer was dursted, only when his reviews were stolen/plagiarized or do not fit our guidelines like any other review discussed here. |
|
| Author: | Derigin [ Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Witcher wrote: Anyway, no review gets deleted just because a reviewer was dursted, only when his reviews were stolen/plagiarized or do not fit our guidelines like any other review discussed here.
... or in certain cases, where the review is deemed to have little musical content, no longer fulfills current expectations and is in retrospect in poor quality (as does occur to largely older reviews), and/or when there is enough similar reviews of a work, that in comparison borderline reviews are ousted as they're no longer relevant or necessary (as would be with albums with previously no reviews, but now with plenty). There are a number of reasons why a review may be removed, which stem from issues of quality, quantity and even moderator subjectivity. Dursting is (as far I recall) not one of them. There's always a good reason why a review is removed; although, having a rejection is not the end all to end all, and can usually be redeemed through better copy-editing. |
|
| Author: | oneyoudontknow [ Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=203375 release had been wrongly added to the MA; it needs to be fixed on three different profile and then the review can be re-submitted. This release has just been added ... 
and I have just discovered another messed up split with two reviews; one band has been deleted and therefore only one part of the tracklist appears... *sigh*. |
|
| Author: | Napero [ Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
oneyoudontknow wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=203375
release had been wrongly added to the MA; it needs to be fixed on three different profile and then the review can be re-submitted. This release has just been added ... The release can't be submitted as intended, the band called Corpse Under Construction is not in the Archive. The reviewer intends to review all the three bands that have an MA profile with separate reviews; there are two now, and they are not the same review, but discuss each participating band separately. That's allowed, I believe. If/when Corpse Under Construction gets into the MA, the change can be made. Unless you meant something else and I misunderstood. |
|
| Author: | oneyoudontknow [ Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Napero wrote: oneyoudontknow wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=203375 release had been wrongly added to the MA; it needs to be fixed on three different profile and then the review can be re-submitted. This release has just been added ... The release can't be submitted as intended, the band called Corpse Under Construction is not in the Archive. The reviewer intends to review all the three bands that have an MA profile with separate reviews; there are two now, and they are not the same review, but discuss each participating band separately. That's allowed, I believe. If/when Corpse Under Construction gets into the MA, the change can be made. Unless you meant something else and I misunderstood. please draw you attenttion towards the tracklist ... and then read the additional notes ... do you see the error? the release can be added as a split album and not as a split. I suspect it had been added as a split back then, because it was less work to do. |
|
| Author: | Napero [ Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmmm... you're right, but this way there is a link between the participants, and if we change that, that connection will be lost, and a casual browser will think the others are not in the MA. I'll leave this to the others... they work on the reports more and are used to this kind of things. Splits are nice, I honestly like them, but from the database's angle, they suck. 
|
|
| Author: | oneyoudontknow [ Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Napero wrote: Hmmm... you're right, but this way there is a link between the participants, and if we change that, that connection will be lost, and a casual browser will think the others are not in the MA.
I'll leave this to the others... they work on the reports more and are used to this kind of things. Splits are nice, I honestly like them, but from the database's angle, they suck. Yes, there are links, but if all splits albums are added as splits and this way, then it would create a lot of mess on the sites of the bands; on a site note: the Iskra site had all splits added wrongly, to give you an idea. Furthermore, in case of a review, on such a wrongly submitted release, the correction becomes difficult; especially in case the writer had been dursted. Perhaps the whole issue of the splits has to be revamped in V2, but for now all of them have to submitted in a correct way and if this means we have to add them as a split album and some kind of 'inconvenience' is created through this, then be it this way. |
|
| Author: | Napero [ Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
oneyoudontknow wrote: Furthermore, in case of a review, on such a wrongly submitted release, the correction becomes difficult; especially in case the writer had been dursted.
Well, simple PMs and emails will usually work wonders, and most reviewers are willing to resubmit their works, at least that's my experience in the few cases I've handled. In case the author has been dursted, we lose a review, it's not a big deal, and the author probably won't mind. |
|
| Author: | Empyreal [ Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 184#131672 "This album was amazing" + "it was kind of boring, only remembered one song" + "they break the mold and stand out, but that's all they do" = 80%? This album has enough good reviews for this one to not exist. Very inconsistent and rambling review that doesn't make much sense when you put it all together. |
|
| Author: | Nightgaunt [ Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The broken muttoncore split has been removed, and can now be re-added properly. I've contacted the author of the reviews about the situation. Note that if he fails to provide reviews for all of the bands on the split (including the one not in the Archive--it can be appended to one of the others), the whole series will be ineligible as per the "completeness" policy. The review by giganticbrain has been removed. Boy couldn't make up his damn mind. |
|
| Author: | oneyoudontknow [ Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here is another messed up split: http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=146761 Send the users their reviews and remove the split then. Fixed version: http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=205308 |
|
| Author: | lord_ghengis [ Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=201582 Nothing wrong with the review, but the album isn't out yet. |
|
| Author: | EntilZha [ Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
lord_ghengis wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=201582
Nothing wrong with the review, but the album isn't out yet. Beat me to it. |
|
| Author: | Napero [ Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Actually, droneriot beat you both, because I only read the IRC before nuking it. Sorry, dudes. |
|
| Author: | EntilZha [ Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Napero wrote: Actually, droneriot beat you both, because I only read the IRC before nuking it. Sorry, dudes.
Damn, droneriot always beats me. |
|
| Author: | BastardHead [ Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 2568#39284 Album isn't released yet. |
|
| Author: | MikeyC [ Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
BastardHead wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=202568#39284
Album isn't released yet. Holy shit, Emperor_Of_Ice is still around. |
|
| Author: | EntilZha [ Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MikeyC wrote: BastardHead wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=202568#39284 Album isn't released yet. Holy shit, Emperor_Of_Ice is still around. He was the one who submitted aforementioned Iced Earth review, too. |
|
| Author: | blockman [ Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 842#131672 This really says nothing at all, the rating doesn't really fit and it is useless with all the other reviews imo. |
|
| Author: | Nightgaunt [ Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Deleted. Also been seeing a lot of Rainfall reviews in the queue again, for whatever reason. 9/10 of them have to be rejected, of course.... |
|
| Author: | MikeyC [ Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=203268 Reviewed before it's been released. |
|
| Author: | TampoN_TerroR [ Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I been using this site for about 6 months now to read the reviews for certain albums so I can either avoid or get said album... nothing else is as closely accurate. However, there are some really stupid/trolling reviews I seen here. Which is the reason why I made this account when I seen enough. I like reading negative reviews too, but not when there is no real reason why it justs the score (fake reasons like stereotyping the fanbase and/or the band, using other bands as examples for comparison for the good or bad, or anything like "this sucks" "this is shit" "why do people like this?" without explaining a good or decent reason why, and falsely describing the music) http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=770 -GoddessOfDeathMetal http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1525 -MikeyC http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=2413 -Scorpio http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=2413 The_Ghoul http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=53 -bastardHead http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=231 -bl00df1r3d34th http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=170953 -bl00df1r3d34th (again. pretty much every review he makes is for trolling. see for your self) |
|
| Author: | MikeyC [ Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
TampoN_TerroR wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1525
-MikeyC Heh, that was the first negative review I ever wrote, I think.  I'm not sad to see it go, if that is ultimately the case.
|
|
| Author: | BastardHead [ Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
TampoN_TerroR wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=53
-bastardHead YEEESS! Finally some negative feedback (I've gotten the occasional hatemail, but this is maybe the second forum thing). But here I'm a little perplexed as to why you've chosen my Meshuggah review for deletion above all of my other really shitty ones I haven't rewritten yet.... Actually, that review is pretty much my only old one I don't hate. I guess I'm asking for a little elaboration, because I think I have plenty enough musical description in there. Yeah, I dig at the fanbase a bit, but it is far from the entirety of the review. Also, did you even read past the first paragraph of Mikey's Cannibal Corpse one? EDIT: Damn, now that I've gone back and reread my review in order to defend it, you made me realize that I've used the inflatable dartboard line already! Dammit! |
|
| Author: | EntilZha [ Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Meshuggah, eh? Anyone expecting a high amount of detail in a review of a band that is more simplistic than 99% of all goregrind has either never heard Meshuggah or is simply trying to be a prick - "trolling", as you, mister TerroR, like to call it - by asking the impossible. And as for the Cannibal Corpse review. Considering that MikeyC loathes metal and anything even slightly related to metal more than Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler COMBINED hated Jews, a 0% review from him is one of the most flaming endorsements I can think of. |
|
| Author: | MikeyC [ Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
|
|
| Author: | Nightgaunt [ Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Deleted the premature review posted by MikeyC. Tampon_TerroR needs to switch to a bigger gauge. Something the size of one of those prefab firelogs ought to do the trick. |
|
| Author: | Acrobat [ Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here's a fairly vague one, but most of Skyklad's reviews are one paragraph wonders. See Virgin Steele's Life Among the Ruins for an example. |
|
| Author: | Acrobat [ Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
BastardHead wrote: TampoN_TerroR wrote: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=53 -bastardHead YEEESS! Finally some negative feedback (I've gotten the occasional hatemail, but this is maybe the second forum thing). But here I'm a little perplexed as to why you've chosen my Meshuggah review for deletion above all of my other really shitty ones I haven't rewritten yet.... Actually, that review is pretty much my only old one I don't hate. I guess I'm asking for a little elaboration, because I think I have plenty enough musical description in there. Yeah, I dig at the fanbase a bit, but it is far from the entirety of the review. Also, did you even read past the first paragraph of Mikey's Cannibal Corpse one? EDIT: Damn, now that I've gone back and reread my review in order to defend it, you made me realize that I've used the inflatable dartboard line already! Dammit! You seem so excited to get any feedback at all! PS the inflatable dartboard idea is excellent. But your reviews, quite rightly are highly praised, your humour is well liked and more coherant than my own. |
|
| Author: | zeingard [ Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Feedback is always good. I have garnered quite the collection of hatemail and it merely cements my opinions on albums that have been complain about; case and point being Unexpect. I'm surprised I didn't get called out on 'trolling'. Everyone else seems to assume I do such. |
|
| Author: | Acrobat [ Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
zeingard wrote: Feedback is always good. I have garnered quite the collection of hatemail and it merely cements my opinions on albums that have been complain about; case and point being Unexpect.
I'm surprised I didn't get called out on 'trolling'. Everyone else seems to assume I do such. I don't think I've ever had proper hatemail, I try to attack well loved albums every once in a while. Maybe metal fans here are just getting too mature, hell, I didn't even get proper hate mail for my Iced Earth review, the guy said he really liked my stuff just he wished I'd given Iced Earth a higher rating that Trivium. |
|
| Page 107 of 239 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|