I just generally don't think things are as bad as people make out. I find it happens more so on "classics" whereby 9 out of 10 people have reviewed something in a positive light, so the person who thinks the album is average down rates it more than they would if the average score wasn't so high.

It's all about hyperbole and when you write a negative review, you embellish the truth just to make sure people know it's a pile of wank even though there may be some redeeming qualities. I've only ever come across one album which I thought was the epitome of shit, but some people review harshly as if there's nothing good out there.

One example sprung to mind instantly.

You've certainly convinced me. Your argument is based on the notion that all people in their hearts judge the nature comparative worth (scorewise) of redeeming qualities we assume to exist in exactly the same way (which happens to be the way you do so openly), perfectly explaining that very low scores are naturally hyperbolic and exagerated from what they would give if they did so with honest objectivity regarding how they really feel. Luckilly this premise is completely true.

I'm not here to convince you. It doesn't matter much to me if people think the same way.

Well naturally, because as you've already stated, deep down, everyone knows what you say is right.

Yeah. That's exactly what I was getting at.

I'm sure this won't be my last experience with a troll on here. Goodnight and god bless.

You dictate to people what they think, and I'm the troll? Get real! Besides, I've already said I totally agree with you so I don't know why you're attacking me.

With friends like these...

I can tell you right now that I've never given anything a lower score because the other reviews for it were higher. Are you trying to say that you know what I do better than I myself do, based on nothing but your own standards? Pretty ludicrous.

I never said you did, did I? No. I think there are people who do it. If there are people that rate things up when the average isn't to their liking, there are people who do the opposite. It's more than likely that it does occur and if you don't think it's a possibility, then I think you're naive.

Yeah, alright, you caught me on that one. But still. Yes, people do it, but do not be so quick to assume that that is what they are doing, if it is not directly stated.

Yeah I think a lot of zeros on albums that have otherwise shitloads of praise are more malicious than they are reflective of what the negative reviewer really thought it deserved, even if low. Or maybe it's not to purposefully lower the score as much as it is to make a point about the album not being the miracle of metal that everyone else thinks it is.

My assertion to this would simply be, so what? If this reflects what the reviewer actually believes, no harm, no foul. If we start dumping on everyone who has a slightly different scoring standard, who knows where this will end up.

People say this from time to time, and every time I wonder if they have any examples of this phenomenon...

Fact of the matter is we give reviewers the benefit of the doubt. If a reviewer explicitly says "the only reason I'm giving this a 0% or a 100% to lower/raise the score" then yes, that's against the rules. Otherwise we're not mind readers, and we're not going to delete a review because "boy, that score sure does seem a little low!"

I think it would be pretty silly to spend time and effort on writing a review you know will be deleted, therefore you be subtle about what you're doing. People have made a big deal out of this.

Yes, who would believe that your posts would be responded to when both their content and their tone warrented responce. Amazing.

It looks like we have ourselves other Shutdown, or WebOfPiss clone. Wonderful.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=82545

Both reviews are pretty bad. The first one by SkilledDick has little description and spends most of the time talking about the bonus features, I have no idea what the album sounds like just by that.

The other review by MikeBelial only states that it sounds like Korn and nothing more.

I like the term "fascist guitars", though.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=177293

This seems like a questionable review because it's reviewed from the standpoint of it being a black metal album when the project itself has nothing to do with black metal and was never advertised as such. Sort of like me getting angry at The Beatles for not having enough blast beats.

He doesn't really review it as a black metal album he just says 'this is industrial pop goth metal, but I wike bwack metoh so 20%'. He appears to have downs syndrome.

I just might have to find that side project now! And give it a high grade just out of spite!

Heh, I just came here to mention this review and no matter what his opinion is. The review itself is rather bare-bones for 2009, needs a lot more detail and exploration of his points.

Cleaned this far.

Also, I did a bit of janitoring on the Nuclear Assault page. A couple of reviews by UltraBoris, cyclone, MorbidAtheist666 ("should of" ), Ktulu, troublemagnet and ThePiercedSpirit got a ticket to the trash can. Seems cleaner now.

What about ANY answer to my post? At least "you're wrong, gtfo"?

Given that it has 25 reviews I checked if all reviews for Transilvanian Hunger are up to speed, and surprisingly a review by veteran reviewer Perplexed_Sjel caught my eye:

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=624#60052

I don't mind the capitalized genres since I used to do that a lot in the past, too. Or the "it's" where and "its" belongs. Or the non-capitalized "I". What bugs me is that the musical description is less than barebone, not to mention he compliments Zephyrous (he spells it "Zephyrouz") on his guitar playing, when he didn't play a single note on the album.

you're wrong, gtfo

Nah, seriously, I read it, and it doesn't really appear to be that bad. Maybe not caspian's greatest moment, but a decent review nonetheless.

Gone.

Given that it has 25 reviews I checked if all reviews for Transilvanian Hunger are up to speed, and surprisingly a review by veteran reviewer droneriot caught my eye:

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=624#16199

I don't mind "emulation" where "emulated" should go, but then "soleness"? Really? Oh, and there's also an "it" in the potato portion that doesn't belong.

Joking aside, the review was a good read.

Having Lana proofread my stuff isn't always as successful as I'd like it to be, I guess.

Ok... that's what I wanted to know.

You should let her out once in a while, maybe take her for a walk or something. The fresh air might do her some good, and she'll last longer too.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 789#192699

Autothrall's getting lazy. Literally no mention of the music except a throwaway reference to a bassline.

Eh, it's an old review, and was a bit of a gimmick meant for a laugh.

Nuke it if you must.

Personally, I found the review pretty funny... he's taking the piss out of them with (almost) subtle humor. It's called a comedic review, dude.

I apologize, I was under the impression you had to describe the music in a music review. Thank you, Pale_Pilgrim, for showing me the light.

I had actually planned to re-write that review at some point anyway. It was amongst the first one's I wrote around 4 years ago, so it's no surprise it was shit.

Tepes_The_Unweeping's recent review of "Evisceration Plague" really doesn't focus on the music that much - it's more about the art, and how "Kill" was ok, than about anything else.

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=219945#127248

I understand it is a review for a compilation, but this still manages to be bad enough to be removed in my opinion: At The Gates - Suicidal Final Art



First half of his review tells us how he got the videos found on the compilation before its release, how he has all of their albums and how a great fan he is. Good for him!



The second half only tells us that the songs selected aren't actually very rare and he considers it a way to cash in on At The Gates, so he is just telling us a clear fact and an opinion of his.

Seriously, this is the whole review? Nothing about the tunes? Nothing about how the songs fit together? Nothing descriptive about the videos?

I was trying to make a statement. The art on "Kill" and even more so "Evisceration Plague" is ridiculous and quite unforgivable.

Yeah it's acceptable, but go in and fix the errors - was I wrong to expect you to know the difference between "its" and "it's"? You used the right one in that post, at least. "Down ward"? And "listliss"? Spellcheck, muthafucka!

Also, you really ought to describe the music more - you never try very hard in that department.

You know never isn't true. Just not always.

Anyway, yeah, I know my reviews have a bunch of errors in them because I don't do very much proofreading. I've been going through some and doing more thorough corrections (re-writes in a few cases). Will start re-adding them soon.

Also looking for someone to help with proofreading. Anyone care to volunteer?

http://www.metal-archives.com/userrevie ... _Unweeping