Found yet another review that's not saying much.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... 789/63300/

I dunno. It is for a three song demo with no other reviews and it does describe the music, though in no great detail.

Get rid of it.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... eath/62836

I noticed this at a very much later time than I probably should have, but I think it'd probably be good to respond.

Incorruptible's a really strange album for me, but I feel like the album itself had, in a way, highlighted the growing mediocrity from the band. Of course, saying that they're gearing music for radio play is wrong, but it felt just like that when I listened to it. It clouded a lot of my thoughts on the album itself, and... if I'm being honest, I do find that this review was wrong in a number of areas, that particular factor included.

Recently, I've come to realize that there's a particular way to write reviews, and that the focus itself should be on more points than just "oh, wow, this sounds like shit". I'm doing my best to be more descriptive with these reviews, and at this point, I'm still learning how to do it all with a good coat of paint. It's part of the reason I've begun to go back and rewrite my older reviews, and part of the reason I will likely do so for some of my less-than-worthwhile reviews. I try to strive for some form of acceptable standard with my reviews, and I'd feel bad if I let too many bad biases slip through like this particular review did.

Given time, I'm probably gonna re-review it. I feel the album deserves at least that from me. I've been busy as of late, so I don't know if it'd be any time soon, but... it'll certainly be in the waterworks. So, with that in mind... thanks for bringing this to my attention. I appreciate it quite a bit.

You're entirely right. I completely agree with you on that. I was wrong to go and say that. It was a shallow review in general, and I wrote that in a very much pessimistic and biased state of mind.

While I won't go and say that the album itself doesn't FEEL streamlined, however, I definitely went about doing it the wrong way, and is probably the number one reason why I ought to rewrite the review when I get a chance to do so. As a relatively new person to reviewing, I'm still finding myself having troubles getting down to the exact points and putting down just why I feel that these albums don't perform well... and I can see I'm not the first to see just how bad that ends up getting with some of the older reviews.

TheMeh, let's take this conversation to the Workshop. We can talk at more length there and help you get your thoughts articulated. This thread is mainly to bring fodder to the mods.

A perfect example of track-by-track review that I found in this one heheh.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... sman/23024

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... /axman/148

I can't possibly see this holding up to today's standards. King Diamond "Them" review from 2002.

I'd like to see Jay and Silent Bob review it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2TbE8uHOJ8

Track by track.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... ashi/65724

Hey all

Back in 2017, I started a thread bringing up something similar to this, I probably came at it from the wrong angle, and the thread was shut down and locked. However, in the end, this massive thread is pretty much exactly what I was trying to get at, I'm surprised no one mentioned it at the time, but all good. As this thread is so huge, it began back in 2004 if I'm not mistaken, is the ultimate goal here for people, users, mods and admins to come across reviews they feel are "not up to standard" we'll say?

I cannot see from my quick look, but I guess someone's view of a review that is not up to par differs person to person, so is there a guideline you guys are going by when selecting not so informative reviews? I know when writing a review, there needs to be standards to adhere to. But if there is some guideline, is it listed anywhere and ultimately what happens when someone brings up a link to the questionable reviews in this thread? Does it get discussed and then someone decides whether it gets deleted or not?

I know this would be a massive job which would take a long time, as there are thousands of reviews on here....

This thread serves the purpose of letting us know if you find reviews which don't follow our rules and were mistakenly accepted. We don't want people to go on crusades though; we'd prefer if users just posted reviews they might find in passing that seem to have been accepted in error. We'd much rather they not go hunting for such reviews. Once posted here, we'll look at them and decide if they were accepted in error or not.

It's important to keep in mind that our rules for reviews are very basic; our standards for what we're looking for are pretty simple. I won't go into detail, because I have in other places before, but for reviews we look for three things: (1) that the review, above all, describes the music of the album; (2) that the review is well written and formatted correctly in English; and, (3) that the review is a genuine opinion. The latter can be hard to judge, but we usually weight on the side of it being a genuine opinion (even if a controversial or negative opinion). Your previous thread - on negative biases - seemed to be more focused on wanting to police genuine opinions and we don't police such things here. Even if the review attacks the band, or might not have anything novel to say, so long as it meets the three requirements we just listed then we will accept/keep it.

Thanks for responding and listing the review rules.

I gotta say, after going through the first 5-10 pages of this thread, going back to 2004, I don't see any of those reviews anymore. I mean, all of them listed were shockingly bad and I can see why you want them gone. As for my previous thread about the negative bias, I guess I was coming from the angle that if the reviewer was just basically attacking the band and talking nothing really about the music and just saying "the singer sucks, the drummer sucks, that song sucks, the album sucks, the band sucks", aside from being a genuine opinion, it hardly qualifies as a decent review. So now I have the 3 golden rules and if I see any reviews that dont contain all 3 in my travels...then i'll post them

Track-by-track from 2004. There's three other good reviews so I see no problem axing it.

I'm hesitant to get rid of reviews when they are the only one for an album, but this one is poorly formatted, confusing and not even very descriptive.

poof poof

I think you just found the textbook example of what not to do in a review.

Ay dios mio

poof

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... p3tt/77113

Generic black metal with blastbeats, is that enough to describe the music?

Badly formatted and light on description.

Barely a paragraph long, with only a few of the sentences describing the music. The other review for this album isn't great either, but has just enough description, I think it squeaks by.

https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/M ... _Abyss/251

Anti semitic sentiments. Take it down please.

First one is poof. Second one is ehhhhhhhh. It's mega short and we frown on One Paragraph Wonders but honestly that might pass as a very succinct 3 pointer. I'll let another mod double check that.



I'm not sure what you're asking for here? You just linked the album itself, not any particular review. I read the newest one and found nothing offending. If you're asking for the whole album to be taken down then yeah that's not happening. That's not how it works here.

Noctir's review, that's what HuggieBigs is asking for.

I'm not sure about Noctir's personal views, but it seems like he was going for a laugh more than being outright anti-semetic. That looks like a light duty Cartman line rather than an indictment of a civilization, let alone a cornerstone to base anything more than a dig off of. Plus, he doesn't pursue it any further than that one line. He's talking about how the album is a cash grab and contextualizing it in a joke.

I'm working on a review where I call the phrase "androgynous Frenchman" an oxymoron. Is that too mean or are we allowed to toss in an off color joke once in a while?

"Having embraced his Hebrew bloodline"

Not the worst thing ever but yikes.

ttps://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/B ... zle/320274

"The real highlight of their career is famously Transcend The Rubicon; a lurching, heaving monster of mid-paced death metal with the inimitable bark of Barney Greenway leading the charge."

Incorrect. Dave Ingram is the vocalist on Transcend The Rubicon, not Barney Greenway.

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Rotting_Christ/Khronos/1202/Aurora_Rider/358588

Can anybody explain why this one has been accepted? Based on usual standards?

This user's whole review record is quite awful and not worthy of being on a site like M-A.

He's passable. We don't really have the strictest standards; so long as you focus on describing the music of the album, you write well, and your opinion is genuine we will accept your review. He appears to check all those boxes.

Not in my point of view, not at all. Nearly a decade ago, this would not have been acceptable, but oh well - shouldn't do much harm, should it?

https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... 5/Lane/454

Deeply unsure whether this kind of track-by-track should be accepted. It doesn't lack content, but it's not a great review even if you ignore the middle part listing all the songs one by one.