Yep, complete spinoff of the Good reviewers on MA topic. In this topic you will be discussing about the mediocre to terrible reviewers who should just quit and go to a different horrible site (Metalcrypt?). I'll go first

alexlovestheredchord. The name says it all. Horrible grammar of that of a 6 year old. The ignorance of his reviews brings anger to one (he called Candlemass emo!)

Who irritates you?

probably why he got banned

dunno if this thread will get locked or not but I'll contribute anyway:
There's quite a many dudes on this site whom I fucking hate but I'm not gonna name them all...so I'll just say shantanupatni1991. He's like from india and thinks he's the most elite metalhead in existence (just read his Metallica and Lamb Of God reviews...holy shit) plus his reviews are always short and so poorly written that sometimes I wonder how they even got approved in the first place

Is this really necesary? Bringing up bad reviews in the oven fodder thread is one thing, but an entire thread for targetting individuals for derision?

That's just a bad way to look at it, really. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the reviewers who have been mediocre, and give reasons as to why. Then we can give them pointers if they use the forum also, so they can improve as a review.

Also I find it just a tad bit strange that if someone writes a review that they should also been able to take negative criticism. Taking all the positive feedback that is deserved is one thing, but some might have some suggestions that they need to know about either. The thread may sound a little harsh because of the name, but it's for the help of each of the individual reviewers.

That all sounds nice and well, but doesn't fit with the tone you set in the OP:



Helpful critiquing is one thing, but I'm pretty sure that is already done in the review discussion thread and the feedback thread. I also don't see what use there is giving pointers for peoples' reviews when the odds are they aren't even reading this thread, unlike the feedback thread where they ask for it, so you know they are listening.

No, I don't believe your motives were altruistic to help people, you just made a thread for bashing crappy reviewers and won't admit it now. A little self-knowledge goes a long way.

Metal Crypt is FAR from a horrible site.

He got banned because he went and maliciously damaged band pages. The site does not penalise reviewers for having poor taste, that has to be absolutely clear, we don't need to make our already poor image to rest of the internet any worse.

I'd hardly say MA has a poor image, when compared with the alternative sites.

Go somewhere else on the internet, say something about the Archives, and see how many times you hear the word "elitist" thrown around. My buddy was a regular on another forum that he convinced me to join. As soon as I defended MA reviewers I was basically ostracized (it was a tough crowd to begin with, honestly), but I've noticed it elsewhere as well. People seem to think MA is where the smug douchebags go. I think because the general consensus around here is a negative view of some of the most popular bands (Pantera, Lamb of God, et cetera). Of course, most of these people are fools.

Who gives a shit about meaningless terms like "elitist?"

Not me, but that's not the point. You say we don't have a poor image, yet I say that if you were to ask around the internet, you wouldn't get very positive feedback about the community/review(er)s.

Well, my experience might be somewhat limited, but I haven't run into the sentiment.

You don't even have to go on the internet to find out, other metalheads I've met in person have laughed at me when I mentioned that I wrote reviews for MA. We're viewed as a bunch of nerdy elitists that only listen to absurdly obscure black metal from eastern europe.

I've gotten my fair share of negative feedback, but a good deal of this website's reputation seems to hinge on some of the older reviewers here. Ultraboris' name gets dropped pretty heavily on the other places I go as an object of sheer derision, something which he would probably relish and was likely going for when considering how he mercilessly trashed some of the more mainstream bands that still survive here.

But I must say in defense of this site, the reviews of the more obscure releases on the outer fringes of extreme metal here are largely informative and free of the uninformative drivel encountered on other sites.

Yeah, fuck you buddy. How about you provide a reason for why it's so terrible?

Given that Lord Requiem has been gone from said site (as well as this one) for some time, I'm at a loss as to where googens would get the impression that metalcrypt has anything horrible to it, at least insofar as the reviews are concerned.

Keep in mind Larry that I never said the reviews (or reviewers) were bad, I just said the site was bad. The site is crap because of how cheap it looks. The site is downright ugly. The home page looks as if the staff spent a whole $5 on the website. The site also is hard to navigate with. You cannot search for a band to read reviews on, you can only search the reviews per date going backwards, which is a fucking pain in the ass.

Not if you aren't a retard. The site is not hard to navigate at all.

EDIT: And you definitely implied the reviews/reviewers there are horrible since you suggested those that suck at reviews should pack it in and go over there.

Look at this guy, backpeddling at the slightest provocation. This thread should be about deriding him.

I'm really impressed. You did a fantastic job of derailing the thread so that people wouldn't start talking about how they hate your reviews. Nice work.

How did this go from supposed to be listing off and talking about mediocre reviewers to elitism and metalcrypt?

I intend no hypocrisy in closing this thread, and keeping the "good" one open. By all means, this thread might have been a decent thread... in the same manner that the "good" thread was a decent thread. But, there is a key difference between both threads; wherein the "good" thread has focused on the descriptive quality of the reviewer's reviews, this one's purpose is focused almost solely on the quality of the reviewer him/herself and the site(s) they visit.

As with all such threads, this shit-flinging thread fosters only shit.