Well, he had a pension to act as a "mini moderator" which seemed to turn off some users. He was a little dramatic too...I think he even deleted his last fm page. No biggie.

It's not a bad review. I find people like to call reviews bad and be over critical because they don't agree or don't like the rating. He mentions he likes the album but it is overly long. It may be a little short on description but it's not a horrible review. It gives a little insight on the problems with the redundancy on the album and it's different than the rest...despite being short (I only awarded 3 points).

When you're able to accept reviews, you can make decisions instead of telling us what should and should not have been accepted. I don't care how many reviews were already there for that album.

I dont think the review is written badly. But as you yourself said, its a bare bones review. Do we really need a review of this sort after the huge number of reviews already written for this album just because the reviewer used a program to shorten the song lengths?

That means I can add a few acoustic passages to the album, say that it improves the overall sound by making the album more progressive and get my review selected without mentioning anything else about the album.

Whatever happened to the reviews being selected on a quality curve based on previous reviews? Arent reviews supposed to touch on more than just 2-3 aspects of a release?

Ofcourse, its not an issue with the rating. There are reviews with lower ratings for the album. No one has raised a voice about them.

You are the mod. Your decision. But I request that you think about it once more.

I see and yes, he did delete it. Strange power hungry fellow.

There's no "standard" about what reviews have to or don't have to cover. It's subjective. Perhaps it is lacking in the description portion, but length is not a disqualifier either. We have a "bare bones" acceptance drop down listing...which awards three points. SO, that's what I gave it.



Of course it is my decision and I probably would have been more receptive toward your view if you had presented your view like this rather than using the "I don't know how this one got accepted" angle.

In the future, remember, there are no set rules for review acceptance. We have almost 20 moderators and 6 administrators and each has different guidelines for reviews. I can tell you that I'm not an easy one and I'm really critical, but even I can listen to other users if something isn't right. I did think about this review for a while before I accepted it and had the same concerns but I chose to accept it. I have changed my mind and I will ask the user to resubmit with more "meat".

Point taken. I ll keep it in mind for the future. Sorry if I was being too demanding or something.
My initial reaction was actually the result of my rigid view of the review selection process. I thought that when a release has a number of reviews you need a lot of matter + a different approach than the other reviewers. Practically, this is what happens here to some extent. But looking at this idea with an inflexible view makes it seem as if a newbie cant get his review for a popular album selected unless its really, really good.

Short review, and only really describes the first song. A lot of the user's other reviews are also quite short, judging from a short skimming over them, though some are for albums without any other reviews.


http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=4096#96

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=114#76307

Just a mishap: Evilspeak's review has the same text pasted twice in the review's body.

Yep, I presume that once another piece pops up for one these releases, then the ones by Skyklad can be nuked.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 5418#65857 - the album isn't out yet.

If I remember correctly, Avestriel was banned from the forum a long time ago, and the rules don't explicitly state that reviews before the release date are not allowed, so the guy may have never even had a clue.

Egads! Review removed, and he has been emailed about it.

Zorc's review

It isn't poorly written or anything, but his main point of contention (and overwhelming majority of the review) is that The Shattered Fortress reuses parts from other DT songs. I hate to be a pretentious asshole, but that just isn't fair to the record. The entire point of the song and all the other ones he bitches about was that they were supposed to be connected as one huge suite. It's like watching The Bourne Ultimatum and complaining that it resembled the first two movies and used flashbacks. I don't know if cluelessness is grounds for nuking, but I recommend axing this one if it is.

Even though I see it's already been deleted, the album is actually out I'm fairly sure.

http://www.season-of-mist.com/light/ind ... ICROCOSMOS

Says it came out on June 22nd, it only comes out July 14th in the States.

Plus, I've already received my copy, so I'd guess that it has been released unless there's been some kind of gargantuan fuck up.

I just sent the guy an email, we'll see what's up.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=2375

Reviews by judasiscariot, Vulture, TheSomberlain, GoatRitual and creepingdoom can be deleted. Doing one of my own right now anyway.

They aren't great reviews but they are sufficient, down and dirty for the caffeine crowd.

In case anyone wonders about it, I just cleaned the Altars of Madness a bit. No, OzzyApu's opinion is still there, you may still point fingers and laugh.

ah, for an instant I believed you cleaned the ones with bad marks...

Even for a first review this doesn't say much at all about the music.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=234054

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=3626#66546

Angel Witch debut review by grimdoom. He gives it a 99%, says it's one of the best metal albums ever, but says that the vocals suck and they get tiring, and also that the bass is "uninspired." I don't think this review gives an accurate picture of the album in question and there are other reviews under it, and overall the review is just really retarded.

Grimdoom has never been a great reviewer...I remember the Back from the Dead one.

Mutilator's review is pretty much useless
http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=13500

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 3202#99317

1/3 of the text is about other famous black metal bands, about how young their main members were when their first ever demos/EPs were released to the world.
The remaining first and third paragraphs are about how unoriginal and cliched this is compared even to the likes of "Zarach 'Baal' Tharagh". He never really talks about what he heard or what it sounds like, like the other two reviewers did. He only babbles about how much he hates it. It's like the guy never actually listened to the songs.
I find his review quite useless for people who might be looking for information about the music.

Damn dude, this is the third time you've called for this review to be deleted. Combined with the fact that you admit you are in the band if you keep this up they'll keep the review on the site just to spite you.

Hmm, sounds fair. The only reason I have posted it again was because that no one really replied about it except one guy. No one said anything like: "okay, your right, we are going to delete this one" or "this review isn't as bad as you make it out to be and we're gonna keep it". I felt ignored and that's why i posted it more times. But it doesn't matter anymore, I won't be posting it again.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=326#147

Don't really need this.

So you won't be posting because one person said something that hurt your feelings? I haven't read the review, but I will and give you my objective opinion. Don't be so defensive...this is the internet.

Duke Nuke 'em. Boris' The Haunted review - gone.

He said he won't be posting IT again. He figured it was being ignored, he got an answer about it, and he won't post the link anymore. That's all.

Thanks, Bastard. I missed the "it" part somehow.

It's not that my "feelings" were hurt, but like you said I already posted IT 3 fucking times already. No one really seemed to care about IT, until now that is:D...
Thanks for wanting to read it and give me your objective opinion:)

Well, I did read it and I deleted Narath's review. Little to no focus on the music other than "it's fucking shit" a couple times. I really liked the "foreigner whispered vocals" part...everyone is a foreigner to someone on this site.

It's gone.

Wow, thank you very much!:)
"I really liked the "foreigner whispered vocals" part...everyone is a foreigner to someone on this site." Lol yeah, some of the things he wrote were pretty silly.

www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=424#1040

Review for Beyond the Veil by Peepsbucket. Its 8 sentances long in 4 paragraphs. He compares it Opeth and nightwish, names his favourite song and talks about the haunting atmosphere and the lack of guitar solos, which almost all the other reviews mention too.

EDIT: The review above it by heavymetalvixen is also very short and vague, only a single paragraph long and only mentioning the lack of guitar solos and the vocals.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 474#133265 -by gk

Anyone else thinks this is crap? Considering that there are 17 other reviews, this doesn't do much to describe the music.

Edit: One above by ShadowSouled isn't that great either.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=861#4085

Ow! My eyes!

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=2335#84033

OzzyApu doesn't know how to use html, Finnish admins don't know how to pay attention...

Fixed it just now. There's always gonna be one little error that I end up missing.

Finnish admins haven't approved any OzzyApu reviews in a long while. Blame Canada!