Of all my years here, this is really the first time I'm hearing negative reception of the reviews. I didn't think having them on Metal Archives was such an eyesore for so many people.

I don't think they diminish the site's credibility. Any person with rational thought would realise that reviews are personal opinions and that the information presented on any release doesn't coincide with the reviews they have. What I mean is that because The Unspoken King has almost universally bad reviews here doesn't mean the additional notes say "this album sucks lol" - the information is still neutral, and if you want to know opinions on it, read some reviews.

Some of the reviewers here do write for their websites/blogs/grandmother and just paste them here for extra exposure. That's fine and I have no issue with it. I also like to review every now and again - not as much as some of the more proficient members here - and mine are written exclusively for Metal Archives since I don't have a blog or a grandmother. If the reviews were suddenly deleted then all my reviews, and those of many others, would disappear forever.

I'm not suggesting that every accepted review is the gold standard in reviewing, since we're dealing with many different backgrounds and English is not the first language for some of us, but they're there to give people an understanding of an album before they listen to it. I think it would be sad if the reviews were gone.

On the credibility front - won't some just view the deletion of all reviews as copping out in favour of actually trying to fix what they perceive to be a broken system? Just speculation really.

When I think that some MA users criticized Amon Amarth for caring what retarded trolls/idiots/aborted brainless pieces of shit wrote on the internet and now the same shit's happening on MA, well, that kinda makes me sick...

I know another solution. First of all ban trolls with spamming or offensive reviews. Seccond, we dont need higher standards for reviews, any review that can pass minimum standard would be ok, but the moderators also rate your review.

Basicly it would look like this:

When you click the desired album, you click reviews. Along with review title, album rating, reviewers name and date, it is now also displayed review rating (this is rated by mods when they accept review). Lets say the minimum rating is 50% and everything better than minimum is rated higher. For example the reviews which are perfect, interesting, have ALOT more info, ... - get better score, up to 100%.

A problem I can already see with this is for reviewers with scribe status, whereby reviews are accepted automatically. You might argue that every one of their reviews could just be given the maximum score, but I know for a fact that not every review a scribe puts out merits that (while acceptable, I don't believe many (if any) of mine merit that kind of rating ). I can also see it opening the doors for people to start bitching about each other, eg. "My review was better than [insert name here]'s, why did the mods give theirs a higher rating?" I'd like to think that it wouldn't be the case, but it's almost certain that someone would take it the wrong way. Not to mention how long it'd take to go back and give every review that's already been published a score.

Similar ideas have been put forward before, such as reviews being ranked based on how many points it received when accepted. Diamhea pointed out that the problem with that is that very few acceptable reviews receive anything other than 5 points, so an implementation like that would be pretty much pointless.

I've seen the idea of users getting to up- and down-vote reviews a couple of times as well, which could work provided that some kind of limitation for voting is set. Otherwise it would obviously be abused by users who would register just to down-vote the negative reviews of their favourite band. If it was limited to users who've published a certain number of reviews (say at least 25) or to Veteran status or something I can see it working.

That being said, I don't think it's really necessary to introduce a system like that. Things work fine as they are in my eyes, but it's some food for thought I guess.

Well that would not happen if only mods will rate your review by a strict standard or by example of what a review should look like.

If combined, the two ideas might actually work. In other words,
- limit the number of reviews to 10
- don't disallow further reviewing of albums that have reached the maximum limit
- approve a new submission at the expense of an already published review of inferior quality
That way, people would strive to do their best; there's nothing more discouraging than one's own, deep-seated belief that his/her reviews suck in comparison to those of others.

PS. Since there are so many enthusiasts who care enough to maintain the feature, is it out of the question to have a new status, e.g. Metal editor, which gives seasoned reviewers, Empyreal for one, the privilege to help monitor the queue?

I don't think we should go dicking with the system too much. It works fine the way it is, for the most part. I just think there needs to be a bit stricter guidelines, but not by a whole lot. Like I feel that there should definitely be a purge of old and terrible reviews** and that maybe just a bit harsher on acceptance. Maybe do away with the three pointers and only accept things that would warrant five points or higher. I really don't like the idea of limitations on the amount of reviews and I think it would create far too much work for mods to have to read and reread on a regular basis all the reviews for the album in question. Then you'll run into people getting butt hurt when their review gets the axe. Too many problems.


**obviously this would be a huge endeavor for a giant site wide purge but if a system somewhat along the lines of when the multiple editions feature was added it wouldn't be so bad. Kind of like what Antioch suggested; where certain trusted reviewers or workshop people would be able to nuke the shit reviews or just have site powers pertaining to reviews only, if that would even be possible. Idk. Just an idea, probably needs tweaking but it could be worth it. Y'know if it is actually a problem.

The facts contradict your aggrandizing and ignorant statement:

Non scribe reviews of the last week or so (by moderator):

March 19 (13 total):
Diamhea: 12
Bastardhead: 1

March 20 (7 total):
Diamhea: 7

March 21 (5 total):
Diamhea: 5

March 22 (10 total):
Diamhea: 10

March 23 (17 total):
Diamhea: 16
Doomsday: 1

March 24 (6 total):
Diamhea: 6

March 25 (15 total):
Diamhea: 15

March 26 (11 total):
Diamhea: 11

March 27 (13 total):
Diamhea: 13

March 28 (2 total; so far):
Diamhea: 2

99 reviews total
Diamhea: 97
Bastardhead: 1
Doomsday: 1

According to this snippet, I moderate roughly 97% of review submissions, give or take a little bit due to the lack of information on rejected entries. Hope this transparency clears it up for those of you thinking that the queue is equally handled by all mods.

And before you it was Zodi, and before him it was me, and before me it was Metantoine, and before him so on and so forth. Sounds like y'all are just bitching about an easy fix. Y'all can say whatever you want, but it won't happen. I'll bet my god damned car on it.

Shouldn't we be keeping this in the mod forum anyway? Ya know, the place I've been trying to plead my fucking case but keep getting ignored because y'all seem to feel the need to speculate and whine about wanting a gigantic fundamental change in the site straight in public? I guess all the professionalism left with Nightgaunt.

Yeah, coming from you, talking about reviews...

Bring back professionalism, make Metal Archives great again!

Yeah yeah say what you will about me, but at least I try to keep mod business behind mod doors

I'm not trying to derail the thread at all but what happened to Nightgaunt?

Please!

I really hope deleting all the reviews won't happen. It would be such a shame to see so much work tossed (I get that the reviews will be returned and some people may put them up on blogs no one will read, but still). The reviews have been so central to what makes the site great, and I think deleting them would be like cutting out the site's soul. Having a platform where anyone can review is great, because people can write and perhaps even have opinions they couldn't voice at another site where they have an editor (for better or for worse), and moreover very obscure stuff gets reviewed here that I think most metal sites would overlook. Also, I'm pretty sure that many prolific reviewers here don't have their stuff posted on blogs or other sites.

I do understand the issue of it being hard for the mods, but I think there are some viable solutions. First, why not mod some more people to help with the review process? I'm sure there are a good handful of users who are reliable and would be willing to do it. Also, perhaps expand the scribe feature (within reason, of course). Also, I'm all for tightening up the standards a bit. This would probably make it easier for mods to see at a glance if reviews should be rejected. I 100% think that for bigger albums with lots of reviews, the review standard should be much higher (help weed out the huge influx of bad Iron Maiden, Metallica ect reviews constantly pouring in by noobs very quickly).

Also, I think it would a real shame to delete all the reviews because of this. Couldn't the standards just be changed so these reviews are no longer acceptable? As for the site's credibility, I'm sure people are aware that anyone can submit so therefore there will obviously be some stinkers (and if you made them not acceptable, problem solved either way). Like BH said, it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I see absolutely no reason to change the present system. In particular, I hate the idea of a maximum review number for an album. I see all the trolls running as fast as they can in order to be one of the ten lucky ones whose review for the successor of "The Book of Souls" will be published. The sooner they submit, the more the quality sucks.

There is a second point why I don't like this idea. Perhaps a very good writer starts his work after important albums have already achieved the maximum number. Nobody can explain, why his (probably) good review would be blocked by (maybe) average reviews.

From my point of view, the reviews add a special flavour. The endless lists of releases, albums, line-ups and songs are a lot of work, but they are mainly for statisticians. The reviews are (sometimes more, sometimes less) the entertaining part. Just read PoD's great review for Pizza Face. How many lists does it take to reach the same level of entertainment?

If the mods need more support, then I share dystopia4's point of view. Maybe there are some reliable guys who like to be mods, at least for a certain period. However, thnks to the mods for their great work so far.

Plus I'm disenchanted with the entire system lately. Nearly all of the feedback I receive concerning the actual moderation of the review queue is negative. I have received death threats, among a veritable TON of hate mail from upset/confused users, even longtime contributor DeGa told me that he no longer feels that he wants to continue contributing to the site due to the way "I treated and disrespected him." His review was bad enough to earn an entry in "Crappy diem," but I'm still the "bad guy."

Furthermore, and now that we've clarified that I moderate nearly ALL of the reviews, and yes this goes back nearly two years so this isn't some new revelation, I'm sick and tired of witnessing users with absolutely zero knowledge of how proceedings function behind the scenes come into the "Oven fodder" thread immediately after I accept a review and ask for it to be wiped, almost always citing untenable reasoning (i.e. they don't agree with the reviewer's opinion). Moreover, I've received more criticism from select mods like BH in the subforum here than I have received actual help in the queue itself! Don't like the way I'm handling it? Then how about you actually pitch in and level things out. I indirectly get slammed for being "draconian" or being too heavy-handed in the review/report queues, but I promise you that if I took a month off, both queues would go off the rails fast.

Two years ago, the report queue was over 2,000 entries, and the review queue routinely backlogged at 60-70+. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the site's current efficiency in contrast to that extreme is something that is being taken for granted by many of us; staff and users combined.

This situation has become very serious... I wish everything went back to normal soon. This tension even among mods is very detrimental to MA and to our community.

If this is under consideration, I'd be willing to donate some time as well to helping with the review queue, and just exclusively to that. I don't really care about what my public status is, I just don't want to see the reviews go away.

Same here. If Diamhea needs a vacation I'm sure there would be enough volunteers to step up and pitch in to the reviews que to keep it running.

On a side note to that I think that if he was to stop a lot more reviews would get rejected. I know he personally does minor spelling and grammatical edits to make borderline reviews more acceptable. I doubt other people would be so forgiving.

I absolutely would be willing to help, too. It would make me pretty sad if the reviews were no more, and I'd be more than willing to do what I can to help them stay.

I think getting some help from users invested in having the reviews stick around would be the obvious remedy to the problem Diamhea has presented.

Many users would be willing to chip in the review queue were this 'metal editor' system to be implemented, myself included. (Though you guys probably want someone more seasoned) Once again, anything to keep the reviews intact.

I've got your back too, Diamhea, if you or the other mods need help.

Mod tension is nothing new but this is probably as open as I've seen it. I agree that it's detrimental, though.

What's clear, though, is Diamhea's burnout. Someone else has to take the reigns.

The reviews here have helped me a great deal with finding bands to check out. I would miss them, and unless the bios improved a hell of a lot, I wouldn't see a reason to come here nearly as often.

Autothrall, thank you so much for your blog and rate my music lists. I have been spending hours with them to build a wish list. Very valuable and appreciated!

My pleasure, Dunstan, I'm glad you've found some things you enjoyed.

I too would be willing to help with the review queue. Not sure if I have enough reviews under my belt to give me any pedigree, but the offer stands.

The problem here is that you don't seem to be OK with being the bad guy. Publishing reviews here is a privilege, not an entitlement. You treat it very constructively, which is admirable and especially good for the majority of site work, but failed reviewers need discouragement, not encouragement.

Well, I dont think so. I am a newbie at reviewing and as you see english isnt my first language.
The only reason you want to cut out reviewers is not able to allocate the work to all mods.
I dont expect mods to acc/dec my review right away. If you want to cut all non native english speakers out,
go ahead, but then keep the site to yourself. That god damn murica power, you try my language.

This goes to you Diamhea: All that mod work is a hobby right?
So, if you dont have time dont do it. Nobody blames you, you probably have a job and a familly.
Anyone who is sending you such threats is obviousley mentaly retarded. Ban em from this site then.

Lel: Ban 'em all

I really think you guys should go back to the inner circle of mods/owners and talk this through. Some things clearly need to change from what's been written here. How? Not my call, nor is it anyone's here since we're just regular users, but I think the input has been valuable and clear so far. Now I believe it's time to breathe in and talk it through, so you guys and girls decide what can/should be done in order for this situation to be resolved. It's clear that the community is willing to "work" so it's not like some mods are alone in a corner while others are hi-fiving in a group.

Tl;dr - People, get your shit together, please. I know we're all people but in ten years of using the website I've never seen anything like this, and it hurts the staff's image. Please, for the sake of the site and the community, deal with it.

I hear that's what they did at last.fm. Messing with main features is...

And yeah, reviews need a moderating staff of their own, not one guy who is starting to burn out from doing it by himself. I first suggested having one-task-only "half-mods" a few years ago, there wasn't exactly much resonance. Plenty of people among the scribes perfectly capable of doing it competently, and no one has to worry about them accepting avant-garde grindcore with industrial metalcore influences.

Not all native speakers are inherently good writers, klun222, nor are non-natives doomed to be cast out. Don't generalize in order to argue your case. Be reasonable.

Diamhea, you speak of many users/staffers who take your work for granted. Those are few, dude, not many, but people are always more ready to criticize than to praise. Don't let a statement you described as ignorant poison your attitude towards what you do.

Yeah I've often thought that "half-mod" idea would be good, I'd certainly be willing to contribute as well if something like this were to happen. It definitely seems like there needs to be a change if this much disgruntlement from the mods has boiled over onto the surface.

Honestly, review moderation was never this bad back when it was Napero and I on the review queue. The two of us were able to handle it perfectly fine for years, which suggests to me that the alleged "problems" faced today - that folks are so eager to complain about in this thread - are not the fault of the reviews, but the quality of moderation.

Yet none of us newer guys voulenteer to do this easy job. I wonder why. Be serious derigin, the reviews is a task and a half - and not that useful a task either compared to the myriad of fact-based submissions we could rather be reviewing.

i agree, with all the shitty reviews of artists already done to death getting accepted just because they aren't complete eyesores.

Just get rid of the review submissions and keep it for scribes and mods if it is too much of an issue. No more bad reviews making the site look bad and no more work for the mods.

Since this "debate" has already become partially public I wish one of the admins shared his/her thoughts on the matter. This flow of complaints/suggestions/criticism is goddamn annoying and for once I'd like to see what an official opinion on how this is likely to end would be.

I can only add to this that most of my mates consult the website in order to discover new music through reviews and forums. If you took away either, it would definitely have a negative impact on the site. Even extensive biographies can never replace detailed reviews exposing different points of view. Those who say that reviews nowadays are worse than back in the days should check some of those old track-by-track wall of text reviews or the numerous, vapid rants which are rarely longer than ten lines that were published back then. I have tons of respect for the moderators of this site and encourage them to continue and I would even offer my help for specific issues. The only thing I have always disliked is the culture of cyber-bullying with threads such as ''Crappy Diem'' and recurrent comments such as ''Failed reviewers need discouragement, not encouragement'' that are simply wrong.