I've come across several reviews on here approved at various times that are just completely batshit retarded. There are reviews where people will give an album a 0% just because a band is listed as black metal but isn't "pure tr00 kvlt bleak meahtulz" or whatever. They'll just say "this sucks blah blah blah" and give absolutely NO objective reason why. I mean, if doom metal isn't your style, for example, don't go around reviewing doom metal albums poorly just because you don't like the style - that's subjective and not objective.

Like, to say Venom's "Metal Black" sucks because "dey r poseurs and is not tha tr00 black metal" is fucking stupid and subjective and childish. Now to say it sucks because the lyrics sound like they were written by an angsty 13 year old and the mix is done so horribly that it sounds like nothing but mud no matter how you adjust your equaliser and that the drummer can't keep up and the guitarist doesn't know how to do anything other than pinch harmonics would be much more objective.

I end up wanting to check out and album and see it has only 3 reviews and overall it gets a 30%, then I look and one is 80% and the other two are like 5% and 0% (I just made these numbers up, don't bitch if the mathematics is off, it's just an example) and all three reviews tell me nothing about what the SOUND of the album is, then I have no clue what to think of it.

So my suggestion basically that the users have the ability to vote on the objectivity of reviews. I know a lot of submissions come in and it can probably be hard to keep track of and some of the submissions are just way old but, with everyone chipping in, it could make it easier to find the stupid non-sense reviews.

For starters, try looking at this thread. It's not the same, but it helps get rid of the ones that should not have been accepted in the first place.

That's the problem, there's far too many too keep up with that way.

Sounds like you think the mods covering the review queue aren't doing their jobs because rule #1 for review submissions is that the review talk about the music. If there is no talking about the music going on in what you say is a majority (or plurality) of reviews on the site then you should address that directly. Incidentally, I don't think this is the case, rather that a lot of reviewers just have boring opinions.

Anyway, this objective/subjective dichotomy you want enforced is wrongheaded. All reviews should contain objective and subjective statements. The basic formula is: "The music is this or that" (objective "and I like or don't like this or that" (subjective) "because of something or other" (explanation of the rational employed). Maybe you feel reviewers shouldn't color their reviews with histrionics and hyperbole as some are wont to do. I agree with a sentiment like that, but to make a false dichotomy between objectivity and subjectivity in reviews is not the right way.

Um, no I am not saying that at all. I don't make insinuations and passive-aggressive statements like some pussy.


I never said the majority of reviews, I just said there were a shit load of them.


I never set up a dichotomy. If you read my full post, you see what I mean and gave examples. It's not about colour or subjectivity, it's about blatant over subjectivity and reviewing albums positively or negatively with no kind of basis on the album itself but stupid bullshit that has nothing to do with the music.

Maybe subjective and objective weren't the right words, but English blows and I don't know what the right words are for what I wanted to represent.

When it comes to reviews, MA has very simple standards. When we moderate the queue, we're really only looking for mainly three things: Does the author spend more time than anything else describing the music of the album? Are they doing so in a way that makes sense and is comprehensible? Is what they are saying reasonably factual (does it avoid lies and fallacies)? In short, all we're really looking for are reviews that describe the music of the album in a sensible and reasonable way. There's many reasons why MA sticks to these basic expectations, though the most relevant one is that MA is primarily a database of bands, and secondarily a place for users to comment on the nature of those bands. We don't put restrictions on users being able to voice their opinions, regardless of what musical perspective they come from or how well learned they are in their preferred musical tastes. It is an intentional free-for-all. We recognize we get penalized for this by metal reviewers and other review sites, and certainly there are mods that seek increasing standards on quality (and over the years that has indeed increased slightly), but our duty when it comes to the site's review function is to provide a canvas for you, as a collective community, to make judgments and to put forward your views. So, in a way, we already offer you a way to "vote" on the nature of other reviews by allowing you the freedom of reviewing the album with the thoughts you think are most relevant to it, and giving it a rating as you see fit... contributing, perhaps, to an overall perspective on that album. Our hope, as members of the site, is that eventually every album on the Archive will have a wide variety of reviews available that may allow readers to draw their own conclusions on the wealth of the album.

Other than that, truthfully we are not in favor of adding democratic elements to the way MA operates, particularly for reviews. It is far too easy - using the tools of the Internet - for users to manipulate the system via voting to fit a specific individual's point of view. As much as the site gets confused for being "single-minded" and "elitist", it has ended up being an independent collection of thoughts and actions by our userbase, and to allow "mob rule" to disturb that wouldn't be the best route to go for this site, particularly when you consider how subjective music tends to be in general. For an already extreme genre of music, majority rule would sadly ostracize the extremes, equalize the mediocre, and champion the popular... and that wouldn't be wise.

Hear that guys? The English tongue is to blame...

Now for some seriousness, any sort of "rating" for reviews strikes me as a very bad idea. There is no constructive reason why rating a rating would help anything, the moderators' job is likely to be increased because people will rate down reviews they disagree with, no matter how excellently and objectively written it may be. In a perfect world the reviews wouldn't need what you suggest because they'd be perfectly written, but it is also the only world where the system you're suggesting would have any value, because as it is it remains open for abuse. Unless you expect the moderators to scrutinise these ratings as well? (I'm genuinely feeling compelled to explain that this final inquiry is a joke.)

The oven fodder has been a perfectly functioning system for years on end, because it's not open to abuse. If a poor review slips past in the first case, it's up to the community of users to make the moderators aware of this so it may be dealt with by those who have the power to deal with it. If someone makes a bullshit report (nothing I've ever seen happen), the review stays, all is well. Everyone works together to improve the site. Rating of reviews is already left to moderators (the better the review, the more points are received) which is again not open for abuse. If users were allowed to rate reviews, no matter for what reason or what they're meant to rate, be it general quality or objectivity or whatever, the floodgates for abuse will be opened because dissent is to be expected in the field of reviewing. Imagine if someone hates an album that gets loads of positive reviews, they'll first waste the moderators' time with a bullshit review that won't get accepted anyway, and then they may very well rate all the reviews they disagree with poorly, even well-written ones, deteriorating the overall quality of the site.

Finally, a simple rating system (being simple) will lead to simple minds making simple decisions. You might not find the oven fodder efficient enough, deeming it too slow. Truth is, were this easily-exploited system to take effect, not only will people downvote reviews for the wrong reasons, the oven fodder may also see decreased use because people simply opt for anathematised_one's Rating System(tm) mistakenly perceived as a report system. Moderator work is again increased because of bullshit and stupid people, and the quality of the site is again lowered as a whole.

I doubt any moderator would care at all for a system like this, simply because people are stupid, and quality will always triumph over quantity.

If you don't like the reviews, write a better one.

Low quality review(s)? Write a better once.

Disagree with the opinion? Write a better one, if your writing is convincing, people will take note of that.

Think someone sounds like an idiot? You certainly should be able to write better than them. If a lot of people already have, chances are you don't need to add to that unless you can say it much more eloquently or concisely than them.

Voting systems? I completely agree with derigin on this. I have several highly notable unpopular opinions on albums, and whether or not the masses agree doesn't affect the validity. You can judge for yourself.

*Zodijackyl likes this post*

Indeed, and that's why we don't accept such reviews on the site. If you have seen such a review on the site, then by all means report it in the appropriate thread so we can delete it.


Really? Examples please?


No, you didn't give examples. Not real ones anyway. You made up an hypothetical situation that has no basis in reality, like your ridiculous Venom "example".

If your English is that bad that you can't even express yourself clearly, maybe you shouldn't be bitching about how reviewers write, then...