GUESS WHAT, NOW THIS IS HAPPENING.

I did a few of these about three years back, so why the fuck not go for it again. The general idea is as follows, for those who weren't around back then: I comb through an album's review page with a ton of reviews and see what space can be freed up by terminating the lesser ones. Each review will get a brief summary and a rating along with a verdict to keep it or to let it suffer the dreaded DONKEY PUNCH.

The first album of the new series I'll be doing is the number one most reviewed album on MA at the moment: Megadeth's 'United Abominations'. Unlike the previous method I used, I'll be going through the reviews in REVERSE chronological order, and holding the older reviews to the standards of the higher ones. Particularly with an album with so many reviews, I think we can afford to have a very high standard of writing and delete reviews which, while there's nothing necessarily wrong with them, can be cleared to make space.

Let's begin!

______________________________________________________

1. alexo666 - United melodic beauty. - 90%

Not off to a great start. This isn't a terrible review, but it's somewhat weak due to some rather sketchy grammar throughout, a thinly veiled track-by-track at the end, and a rather bare-bones description of how the album really sounds overall, preferring to just talk about the soloing for a long while. It's not awful but I think it can be safely deleted.

4/10

Donkey Punch

2. MegaHassan - Almost on par with Rust In Peace - 97%

MA's favorite pussykiller is next with a decent review. I'm fond of reviews which give a little bit of personal touch, which this does in the first couple paragraphs, and while there's not as much holistic description as I'd like, I think the fairly detailed descriptions of the individual performances are enough to allow the reader to assemble it well enough.

7/10

Keep

3. The_Ghoul - Dave doing what Dave does - 40%

Mostly ranting with only a very thin sheen of musical description. Describing song structures as verse/chorus is all well and good, but with absolutely no description of the riffing styles or anything else it's hard to get an idea of what this actually sounds like. No need for it.

3/10

Donkey Punch

4. JohnStamos - The Album of Choruses and Solos - 50%

Sort of a poor man's Cheeses_Priced here. This could definitely be structured a lot better but overall the descriptions are adequate despite the verging on track-by-track nature of the review. Not terrible, but I think it could be better. Still, good enough to keep in my opinion.

6/10

Keep

5. quacktheripper - The REAL return of Mustaine - 72%

Relatively well written but the musical description seems like an afterthought; unlike MegaHassan's, there's actually too much personal commentary here and not enough meat, and again this goes into pseudo track-by-track territory.

4/10

Donkey Punch

6. Emoholocaust - United Abominations - 70%

Another veiled track-by-track, and with some bad spelling/grammar to boot. Rust In Piece, really? No description of the album as a whole and it comes off as a series of isolated statements without much meaning behind them. If there weren't 24 other reviews this might be worth keeping, but alas.

4/10

Donkey Punch

7. DethMaiden - Title referring to the music and lyrics? - 40%

Barely any actual musical description; just says it's bad without really providing any reasons despite being adequately written. Just feels like filler, really.

3/10

Donkey Punch

8. ICipher - United Abominations - 82%

Feels like a midrange webzine review in writing but there's plenty of musical description to go off of, which is more than can be said for a number of the other reviews. It's not a joy to read but it has definite content to it.

6/10

Keep

9. MeavyHetal - United as a band - 95%

A lot of musical description despite being cluttered and a bit of an eyesore due to the blocky formatting. Has lots of content and is worth keeping just for that.

7/10

Keep

10. Radagast - Megadeth - United abominations - 60%

Regular writer, and though this doesn't have quite as much musical description as I'd like (holistic, that is) it's still pretty good. Good enough to keep, in my opinion, but it's still a little more borderline than the last two.

6/10

Keep

11. Wraith - If only this were the last nail in the coffin... - 5%

Enjoyably vicious and with enough musical description to justify its venom. Good for an extremely negative review and it made me smile a couple times. I like it enough to keep it.

7/10

Keep

12. hells_unicorn - Aggressive and Thought Provoking. - 89%

Overly track-by-tracky and not very holistic but it still has a substantial amount of musical description and historical context. Of course there's the requisite two paragraphs of political analyzation courtesy of our favorite libertarian, but I'll let it slide. This time.

7/10

Keep

13. Empyreal - Mustaine should just write a novel - 66%

Rather surprising coming from an established writer like Empyreal, this really has no musical description and is just a lot of commentary on the political nature of Mustaine's lyrics. Definitely below par for him and not worthy of keeping; I'm sure a rewrite would be much improved but this simply isn't up to snuff.

4/10

Donkey Punch

14. Human666 - This Is Totally Outstanding! - 90%

Total track-by-track and with some of Human666's classic creative ideas of English grammar. Very unnecessary when compared to the more substantial reviews already present.

4/10

Donkey Punch

15. 7stringV - Just a great metal album. - 92%

No real holistic musical description, yet another veiled track-by-track. This is a little more substantial and fence-riding but I'd still say it can easily be deleted given the number of reviews.

5/10

Donkey Punch

16. Agonymph - A flying start, followed by a decent album - 80%

Substantial musical description, good length, a solid review (though not great) all around. Worth keeping if a little unremarkable, with enough historical context to set this above average despite the boring opening paragraph oh boy Megadeth blah blah blah

7/10

Keep

17. Vlachos - Shoot Dave again - he ain't dead yet, goddammit. - 13%

Pretty much the only review so far with a real 'thesis' to it, it lacks a bit of holistic description but it's unique and ambitious enough a review that I'd say it's worth keeping. Then again I'm a fag for reviews with ideas so mods might not agree.

7/10

Keep

18. Armchair_Philosophy - Keep 'em coming - 80%

Not great but good enough with a solid amount of musical description, generally laying off the huge reams of commentary about the political slant of the album which afflicts this review section.

6/10

Keep

19. Chernabog - Megadeth does it again! - 100%

Fanboyish track-by-track that mostly just talks about how killer everything is. Kind of surprised this even got accepted; can easily be deleted now.

3/10

Donkey Punch

20. morbert - Make’m stop! They’re ruining history - 15%

Not great but it lays of the track-by-tracks and gives you a good idea of what the album, you know, actually sounds like. Not quite the masterpieces that are his Agathocles reviews but still solid and holistic in nature.

6/10

Keep

21. Mikesn - Excellent Album - 85%

Clumsy and kind of track-by-tracky, this is one I would say could just barely be kept except for the fact that there's 25 reviews. This just isn't good enough to keep around.

5/10

Donkey Punch

22. darkreif - United Melodic Thrash Once Again - 92%

Just barely a keeper, this is another one where enough instrumental description kind of makes for the lack of talking about the sound of the album as a whole. If this review section got swept again, this one could definitely go, though.

5/10

Keep

23. CannibalCorpse - A Satisfying Release - 80%

Eh. This one's totally up in the air, but with all the fence-sitters, I come down on deleting it. Just not very well structured and doesn't really say much apart from the album being relatively good. Again, it's a matter of 25 reviews being there already.

5/10

Donkey Punch

24. MurderNArson - Best in years - 85%

Doesn't really do anything, unremarkable, fodder for deletion.

4/10

Donkey Punch

25. Metdude - "What the U.N. may be, this album is not!" - 79%

Another barely acceptable one just because it's nearly all musical description. It could be substantially better with improved writing but all in all the descriptions are adequate.

6/10

Keep
______________________________________________________

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=146969

I haven't heard this album but I know that it DOESN'T SOUND LIKE FUCKING RUST IN PEACE.

Final tally: 13/25 kept.

Assuredly the mods will disagree with me on a few of my ratings, but hopefully this will clear some space. Tune in some time in the indefinitely scheduled future for our next installment!

Is the site really running completely out of server space, or is the reason you are so adament about finding other people's reviews to burn (here and in the oven fodder thread) all a ploy to draw attention away from your swollen mass of interchangable, useless material?

It truly is a tragedy when 14 year-olds discover the internet, but I'm not sure for whom.

Your motives couldn't be more obvious if you made a thread announcing them.

Yes yes, all well and good, I'm crying hot, salty tears into my sleeve at this very moment.

Note: when the doctor was talking to your parents about your condition, the word was NOT 'artistic'.

EDIT: Tepes, did you hit 666 again so fast?

Nice try trying to act all nonchalant there and trying to draw attention away from my searing comentary by insulting me! Again, it's not going to work!

Interesting, I haven't read that review for about a year and looking at it now, I think I'd write it differently if I had done it today. The political content in that review was largely in reaction to people calling Mustaine a Neo-Con, which is pretty blatant in its utter inaccuracy. Looking back at it now, it probably wasn't really necessary to put those 2 paragraphs in, but I don't think that this will be one of the reviews that I do a rewrite on.

Out of curiosity Noktorn, do you plan to do a similar analysis on the reviews put up for albums such as The Apostasy and St. Anger? I'd be curious to see what you think of those reviews since they seem to be populated with a lot of differing viewpoints.

I'll probably just go down the list of most reviews, in which case The Apostasy would be next.

I see, I just reviewed that album a couple of days ago and I think I did a pretty good job of avoiding an overt track by track. I have this built in habit of wanting to say something about every song because often they will include an element that helps describe the album's character.

Although I tend to find myself at complete odds with pretty much everything you've ever said in a review, I think you're able to pull off track-by-tracks well enough for it not to be a problem.

The_Ghoul is basically the worst reviewer on the site, and any time he reviews a popular mainstream album it's guaranteed to be retarded.

care to elaborate your point a bit?

I would have said the same, but I agree with him on some things.

That elfo character is worse. He simply does not make any good points at all. I don't like Flamos' reviews either, quite stupid a lot of the time.

It seems heavy and power metal are dangerous genres to review. You people are so critical!

So the point of this is to aware the mods of what's good or not? Do they actually give a shit? Are they gonna purge the bad reviews?

When it's your favorite genre and you see people shit on it in a non-articulate manner, it is extremely annoying. The_Ghoul seems to be able to write good reviews whenever he is praising something, but he has zero prowess in trashing an album. His Transylvanian Hunger review, which is not a power or heavy metal album, is an absolute piece of crap, and this is coming from someone who thinks that that album is overrated.

I suppose I've just become so used to ignoring what other people have to say, unless I agree with it. I'm a callous, egotistical bastard like that sometimes. I find it much more difficult to review something harshly myself, which is why I stick to albums I enjoy, mostly.

Though the vast majority of people here, the regulars I mean, seem to be into the classic genres (heavy, power, progressive) and its almost intimidating trying to write a review for something in those areas. I've been meaning to try to write a review for Outworld (which you did yourself and very well, might I add), but its scary business around here and I feel like I'm in constant competition and in need to keep up with the talented writers in order to be able to stick this out. Its not a site for professional writers, so not everyone is going to be fluent and consistent. Its a learning curve. I mean, I was dreadful when I started and I'm slowly improving, only several years on. *Rants*

When I did it a few years ago, yes, they would go through the reviews and purge all but a couple I would cite, generally.

I don't agree with the deletion of reviews that would otherwise be acceptable, on the grounds of there being more and better reviews for the same album, personally. Declining a submission on that basis is one thing, but to delete a previously accepted album that is otherwise just fine is kind of lame.

I would agree with that point of view were it not that MA had a hard ceiling for reviews. Since it does, allowing at least some room gives a perpetual ability for the standard of writing to improve. Plus, I think there's at least a few reviews which are only very borderline acceptable due to a fundamental lack of musical description.

It doesn't, actually.

It doesn't? I was almost positive that 25 was the hard limit for review pages.

No hard limit at all, that just seems to be the number that the standards are so high very few reviews make it through. I'd get you quotes from the owners themselves confirming that there's no hard cap, but I'm having trouble finding it. They could have coded it in the database, otherwise.

Ah, well that changes things a bit, but I'd still say that certain reviews such as The_Ghoul's and DethMaiden's lack musical description sufficiently enough that they should probably be deleted regardless of cap or no cap.

There's still validity in pointing out weak reviews that probably shouldn't have been accepted in the first place, of course. After all, that's why we have an oven fodder thread. But given how little "new thread" traffic this section of the forum gets, I think that this sort of thing is just fine. If you do an entire series of reviewing reviews, feel free to post this kind of thread. But just for anyone else's future reference, if it's just pointing out one or two bad reviews you could do that in the previously mentioned oven fodder.

I'll have to take a look at all of the reviews for United Abominations before I cast any stones though, I haven't read them yet. I'm sure if we find that some of these reviews are a bit below current standards, we might be able to knock them off if they really are bad. Let us wait for some other mods to deliberate on any potential deletions though.

http://www.metal-archives.com/board/vie ... t=#1134730

Ah, good searching skills. Usually I nail it every time.

You absolute stud, you.

The idea of there being a set cap was something we tossed around years ago, but Morrigan wasn't into it (nor were some some others). The notion that there actually is a set cap, and that said cap is 25 reviews, is from something that Clanny said in public (while discussion on the matter was stikk current) a long time ago that people managed to pick up on and transmit down through the years.

I don't see why not. So, if I'm the first one to write a crappy but acceptable review for, say, Death Magnetic, which I've just downloaded before the release date, then my review has more "staying rights" than someone who decided to review it months after me, even if his review is better than mine?

If the standards for a new review are high, then such standards should be applied to older reviews as well, or else that would be unjust towards new reviewers.

If the standards are much higher when an album has 25 reviews, should the previously accepted reviews not be re-assessed by the same standards? It would seem silly that a poorly written track-by-track that is just about eligible to the site remains while better reviews get rejected later on because of higher standards.

On principal I agree with you, but it's very rare to find one of these 20 plus albums without a few reviews that make you wonder how they were ever accepted in the first place. United Abominations is definitely among them.

I'm not a big fan of my own review for this album (but I don't think I'm a very good reviewer anyway), it's one of those ones where I sort of hit the wall in terms of trying to find anything relevant to say. I think I overscored it a bit too, I've had no inclination whatsoever to actually go back and listen to it in a long time.

Yeah, my review blows. Not really in any hurry to re-do it though. I can't even finish listening to this album again. It's kind of sad because I don't really hate it or anything.

No, that isn't how we've operated. We raise our bar every few years it seems, the lowest that we'll take. There's no reason to delete otherwise acceptable reviews just because they are for an album that has many. However we do use that as a precedent to scrutinize new reviews even closer.



No, your review should have "staying rights" because it's an acceptable review, despite everything else.

If we delete a review, it should be because it doesn't meet our minimum acceptable standards. Or else we would go out and arbitrarily delete any review that appears to be weaker than other reviews of the same album. It's too extreme.

While Ghoul isn't much, you obviously haven't read anything by grimdoom, although some of his dumber reviews have already been nuked.

To be fair, we're not talking about deleting one of two reviews for an Afghani black metal demo, we're talking about deleting a handful for United Abominations which would no doubt be replaced quickly.

I REALLY agree with rexxz on this one. I've always sort of hated the scaling of judgment based on how many reviews an album has. I think that there should be a line of acceptance that does not fluctuate (or at least not that much) based on the album being reviewed. Obviously that's not really the case, but I think the least we can do is not hold reviews to a much higher standard based on what album they were writtenn for, AFTER they've been written.

Maybe that's not how you operate, but I'm pretty sure that's how most other mods operate, or at least that's my impression by reading the forums.


This is not only about deleting reviews. It's also accepting new ones. It's not fair to have a higher standards for accepting new reviews whenever the imaginary 25-limit is approaching, while some older review, which would not be accepted in the present, is displayed just because it was submitted before. As Noktorn pointed out, we're talking about famous albums that are always approaching the imaginary limit. Somehow I doubt that all the 116 rejected / deleted Death Magnetic reviews in 2008 didn't meet our minimum acceptable standards.

Anyway, since the "top albums with reviews" is always changing, I guess that some mods are always deleting older, weaker reviews.

Ha I can agree. I'm nowhere near the best writer out there, and I do have a problem articulating my thoughts. As for the record most of my reviews are done spontaneously too. Just trying to get my (shitty) opinions out there. It's kind of hard to be unique when you have 24 reviews before it also.

I think Evenfiel is right. If we keep the same acceptance standards for everything, and compared Death Magnetic to a bedroom black metal demo, either the former would indeed have about 200 reviews now, or the latter would have none. If we can "commit a crime" and cherry-pick 20 out of the 200 otherwise acceptable reviews, I don't see a problem in that.

The 25-review limit is not an official ceiling, and neither should it be, but it seems to be a convenient number. If we ever reach that, it usually means that there's about 10 reviews that are always better than the rest in practicallty every respect, and a little bit of pruning helps getting the average quality up. There's no point of keeping every barely approvable review there forever, nobody is going to read 200 of them. If we do, we could just as well link the reviews from Amazon.

I personally keep my own acceptance standard much higher if the album already has 20 reviews, and I can't see any reason not to apply the same to the earlier reviews. Hell, if Metallica releases a new album, I start applying the same higher standards from the first review I see, because getting 150 submissions is guaranteed.