Apart from http://metal-archives.com/stats.php and https://pub.needlebase.com/actions/visu ... etal-Index the database logs what happens to the reviews each year. Below we have the statistics for 2010. 2009 can be found in an earlier thread.

Totals:
14014 submissions in total
8633 approvals in total
5923 reviews were rejected or deleted in total
205 of which were deleted by submitter

This brings the (initial) approval rate up to 61.6% from 59.3% (in 2009). The rejection ratio has developed as 0.42 (2007), 0.39 (2008), 0.43 (2009), 0.42 (2010). The total number of submissions is notably lower (17694 in 2009 and 18092 in 2008). Also see the monthly statistics below.

It should be noted, for these stats and the ones that follow, that the database only logs the date when something happened to the review, i.e. it was accepted, rejected or deleted. This skews the presented results somewhat when it comes to reviews that are deleted after the year of submission. Now, those deletions probably don't matter too much (there aren't that many deletions anyway), so enjoy the figures.



Album stats:

Albums with most approved reviews:
(approvals count forever, so it was later removed it still does show up here):
23 Burzum - Belus
16 Iron Maiden - The Final Frontier
15 Dimmu Borgir - Abrahadabra
15 Nevermore - The Obsidian Conspiracy
14 Triptykon - Eparistera Daimones
13 Dimmu Borgir - Gateways
13 Overkill (USA) - Ironbound
10 Darkthrone - Circle the Wagons
10 Eluveitie - Everything Remains as It Never Was
10 Exodus - Exhibit B: The Human Condition
10 Heathen - The Evolution of Chaos
10 Keep of Kalessin - The Dragontower
10 Waking the Cadaver - Perverse Recollections of a Necromangler


Albums with most rejected or deleted reviews :
44 Burzum - Belus
29 Dimmu Borgir - Abrahadabra
29 Iron Maiden - The Final Frontier
21 Waking the Cadaver - Perverse Recollections of a Necromangler
18 Metallica - Master of Puppets
17 Slayer (USA) - World Painted Blood
15 Dark Tranquillity - We Are the Void
15 Exodus - Exhibit B: The Human Condition
14 Forgive Me - Last Drop of Life
13 Agalloch - Marrow of the Spirit
13 Metallica - Death Magnetic
13 Metallica - Ride the Lightning
13 Slayer (USA) - Reign in Blood


Most improved (most reviews approved and later deleted):
3 Burzum - Belus
3 Dimmu Borgir - Abrahadabra
3 Iron Maiden - The Final Frontier
3 Keep of Kalessin - Reptilian
3 Slayer (USA) - South of Heaven
3 Triptykon - Eparistera Daimones
3 Whitechapel - The Somatic Defilement


Worst albums (rejections/approvals ratio):
3,67 Immortal (Nor) - All Shall Fall
3,5 Austere (Aus) - To Lay Like Old Ashes
3,5 Black Mist -Midnight Christian Slaying
3,5 Death - Human
3,5 Falling Leaves - Falling Leaves
3,5 Marduk (Swe) - Wormwood
3,5 Megadeth - Peace Sells... But Who's Buying?
3,33 Pantera - The Great Southern Trendkill
3,25 Slayer (USA) - Reign in Blood

These ratios are a lot lower than earlier years. 2009 Death Magnetic reached 19(!) and in 2008 the highest ratio was 6 (for …And Justice for All).



Band stats:

Bands with most approved reviews:
99 Iron Maiden
57 Senmuth
47 Darkthrone
42 Dimmu Borgir
35 Blind Guardian
33 Cannibal Corpse
30 Thin Lizzy
29 Burzum
26 Exodus
26 Overkill (USA)
25 Death
25 Slayer (USA)
24 Drudkh


Bands with most rejected reviews:
86 Metallica
76 Iron Maiden
68 Dimmu Borgir
65 Burzum
62 Megadeth
53 Slayer (USA)
42 Cannibal Corpse
32 Death
30 Exodus
26 Blind Guardian
26 Pantera
23 Cryptopsy
23 Mayhem (Nor)
22 Dark Tranquillity


Worst bands (highest rejections/approvals ratio):
5,733333333 Metallica
4,6 Mayhem (Nor)
4,5 Dark Moor
4 Alkonost
3,5 Austere (Aus)
3,5 Falling Leaves
3,333333333 Sonic Syndicate
3,263157895 Megadeth
3 Abominable Putridity
3 Anthrax
3 Crematory (Deu)
3 Trivium
3 Vindicator (USA)



Checking the calendar:

Months:
Jan 1402
Feb 1295
Mar 1567
Apr 1248
May 983
Jun 1775
Jul 956
Aug 930
Sep 826
Oct 907
Nov 895
Dec 1229


http://tinypic.com/r/2btoib/7

The busiest days:
140 June 13
136 June 9
130 December 27
128 June 11
123 June 7
121 June 8
108 June 10
103 December 28
99 June 12
89 January 5
83 December 21
80 February 16
80 March 23
77 April 13
76 March 16


Coincidentally, the 10th Virgin Review Challenge was June 7th to the 13th; and the 11th challenge lasted from December 27 to January 2nd.



Reviewer stats:

Reviewers with most approved reviews:
1200 autothrall
270 Noktorn
203 Perplexed_Sjel
200 alexlovestheredchord
194 hells_unicorn
180 OzzyApu
165 gazeovice
155 joncheetham88
143 Phuling
118 DeathRiderDoom
114 JamesIII
114 kluseba
113 ThrashManiacAYD
104 doomknocker
102 ConorFynes

All the stats look fairly par of the norm from what I remember, barring the final set of stats. Jesus fuck, autothrall is a machine.. 1200 reviews and the closest to him is almost 1000 away. Major props for dedication.

Yeah, he is. His reviews are consistently good/well-written and descriptive though. Is that all he does for a living (if anyone knows)? I also remembered that he's bound to show up when his name is mentioned on the forum.

Eh, I'm personally not as big a fan of his stuff. Might be because of our constantly differing opinions, might be because of his writing style, but every time I read a negative review of his I basically reflect its score across the axis of 50 to see whether or not I'd enjoy it.

Also, it makes me sad I wasn't on the list of most prominent reviewers. I'll have to step it up over this summer.

I think, for the amount of reviews he does, autothrall's are very high quality. I don't know how he does it. I can do a few a week max.

WHAT!?

autothrall autothrall autothrall autothrall autothrall autothrall autothrall autothrall autothrall autothrall autothrall autothrall

To imagine that I lived to see the day when someone actually feels jealous to that boil in the butt of humanity... Surreal...

As a comparison, he had 762 reviews accepted in 2009 (he started submitting in late April). The second place that year went to hells_unicorn on 269.



Well, in addition, you had 3 outright rejections, while this alex ended up with 260 rejections/deletions and a dursting. I wouldn't be too jealous really.

You only had to say it three times! And how did you know I was actually Michael Keaton?



Wouldn't that be something!? Sadly no, I work a few actual jobs, one with fluctuating hours, so the frequency which I'm able to contribute usually depends on that weekly workload.

1200 is pretty daunting. Maybe I can do 1300 this year...?! Maybe not.

Thanks for the comments as always, folks.

Out of curiosity, were all 1200 of those reviews ones that you did for your primary website that year? Or was some of that stuff that you had already written from previous years on your home website. I ask primarily because the closest I've gotten to that is about 316, and if I keep going at the rate I'm going this year, I might be able to hit 500. I literally don't know how you write so fast and manage to keep things coherent.

That's a good question. All of the reviews for the primary website that I've cross-posted here started in October 2008 (I wrote reviews for a paper zine in the 90s, and some other sites long ago, but those were all very short, one 'graph and would never qualify). However, by around the close of 2009 most of the backlog had already been posted here, so I would say almost all of the 1200 reviews (mostly discographies and newer releases) were posted last year, with possibly a little overlap in January. I honestly don't pay much attention to the numbers, when I saw Corimngul's list I had to do a double take.



I have every confidence you can hit 500!

Personally, I don't have too much of a trick except strict application of time. I'll usually rip all the digital and physical promos, demos and such that labels and bands send out to me to my iPod, as well as whatever older projects I'm working on (like discographies, or this year I'm working on specific scenes chronologically by year). That way I can listen to them in the car, or at work (depending how busy I am), or when I'm writing, browsing, playing a PC game, whatever. Then the obsessive part: I'll plan out in advance how many I think I can do that day, usually three, gather up my initial thoughts and just set to work. They can take anywhere from 15-60 minutes, relative to how much I think I've got to say. With older albums I've listened to for 20-25 years I tend to elaborate more, with newer, derivative releases less so.

If I've got less work one week (the schedule varies), I can write more, or vice-versa. I almost never get a chance in the evenings or Saturday/Sunday due to girlfriend time, other commitments, hobbies, etc. Life is very likely to change over the next few years and reduce the amount I can contribute, but I've been having fun with it while I can. For me it all pays off when I uncover some gem that I missed growing up, or some new album that wrecks my mind. It's also decent practice for writing outside of the field of critique, just to translate thoughts to text every day in some form.

There are other axes of value and prowess besides quantity. Peculiar how one rarely seems to encounter a person voicing an aspiration to grow stronger in those areas, while self-deprecation concerning an inability to contribute thousands of pieces (as opposed to 'mere' hundreds) is commonplace. Peculiar how this pattern of evinced priorities is more common amongst the collective established, standing elite than in the inexperienced new hand. Peculiar how the pattern seems to gain redoubled clarity with each new iteration of the "Virgin Challenge."

Sets one to thinking.....about past, present, and future alike.

i.e "the virgin challenge is dead, look what it hath wrought"? Didn't need a whole paragraph.

Seeing Alkonost on that "worst rejections/approvals ratio" list is surprising to me. They don't have any anomalous new albums that would prompt a lot of angry fanboys writing angry reviews (although their new album is a little off their previous work). Maybe their listening audience not being native English speakers might have something to do with it. I'll have to review some of their stuff to fix up that ratio!

Does this esoteric phraseology lend itself to the suggestion that the other areas of my body of work are in deficit, or otherwise not worthy of being counted amongst the dozens of chapters of novels that only those with an existent knowledge of the album already would bother to read? Please do not take offense, but this inquiry is rooted in the proposition that my dialogue with the prolific autothrall was the central inspiration of your disapproving rant with regards to the review challenge. If this is not the case and your sentiments are oriented to a general observation, please feel free to disregard this vivid response to a slightly over-verbose statement by you.

In addition to purely linguistic issues, keep in mind that some bands/albums are bound to have their stats in some areas drastically skewed by the presence/actions of one or two uncommonly persistent (and persistently untalented) users. Hell, sometimes these two issues combine.



I don't have enough personality (or, I sometimes suspect, cleverness) to be offended as an individual by most things, so no need for concern. Allow me to attempt an uncharacteristically clear and concise answer: Yes, I think that you as an individual could stand to improve in your craft, as can most others at any given point in time. No, I do not think that focusing on one's production speed (and by extent, one's volume of submissions) is likely to facilitate improvement in that area (in you or in most others). Admiring and being inspired by another writer is also swell, but again, of all the things that one could admire about another writer, I think that his/her speed is one thing less likely to facilitate growth in the basic strength of one's own compositions. No, if I felt your individual body of work was below par in general (ESPECIALLY that treating with albums that have already been reviewed to fucking death), I would probably have deleted it already, and indeed, probably wouldn't have accepted so much of it in the first place. No, I've had misgivings about the way in which the current review challenge frames value of individual contribution (implicitly and explicitly) for years now. In fact, I advised against this at its inception, but I had no intention of actually forcing Sean16 to see (or do) things my way. And finally, yes, my comment was a general observation (read: you are hardly the only one that's ever inspired me to make it); by its nature it is not something that I would have said anything about had it been otherwise.

...Alright, so I've pretty clearly not had much success with the "concise" thing....I think I was more efficient the first time. But hopefully I was at least somewhat more clear this time.

If it's any consolation, I will admit that my previous post was a pretty obvious failure at being cute, as parodying other peoples' writing styles is not one of my fortes. Nevertheless, while I can see where quality is more desirable than quantity, there is an added benefit to the review challenge motivating people to hit more unexplored territory, though admittedly I have gone into reviewing alternate releases of well known songs, though lately I've taken to obscure demos and EPs by unsigned bands. Perhaps if more people exploited the random band feature and sought out such releases for the challenge, it might not come off as being a mere exercise in attention getting for the reviewer.

I will also admit that my reviewing of already well known albums is something of a self-serving practice, as I like to get my own 2 cents in about material that a lot of people have already heard. It's not necessarily overt status seeking, but more of getting some thoughts off my chest that have been nagging me for a few years on a respective classic.

Anyway, in the end, it ought to all be in the name of getting the word out, which obviously isn't the only motivation at play regardless of any is or ought involved in the matter.

If it makes you feel any better I thought it was plainly obvious what you were trying to do with that post. I'm fairly sure Nightgaunt chose to let that one go over his head on purpose.

How amazing would it be if he has a job where he facilitates smooth and concise negotations between two parties?

You didn't use enough parenthetical asides and weren't quite deadpan enough to make it sound like me. More fundamentally, you weren't enough of a jerk. That is key. Some day, grasshopper (barring the unlikely event of the cosmos' luck taking an upswing, that is).

Interesting to see that you perceive the ostensible good of the Challenge to be a sort of promotion/appreciation fair for the sundry bands concerned, and perhaps by extent a recommendation service (or warning service) for users. I wonder if that is the way that the majority of the participants have come to look at it....the competing view (probably more likely to be held by staffers and other dour, joyless sorts) is that it was begun mainly to augment the Archive's assets--both in terms of the actual and the potential--which of course favors a slightly different scale of priorities. Of course, either of these does not necessarily fully exclude the other, but there does seem to be some discrepancy.

It is because I acknowledge the benefits that elide from the "more is better" outlook that I have never tried to pose as an obstacle to the aforementioned proceedings, and indeed why I've never adopted an everyday policy of rejecting work from mass-submitters who I feel to be capable of significantly better work, if they'd only pace themselves a bit (I've never enjoyed seeing cases of "toomuchpromotosis"). Over time, however, judging simply from comments and discussion by active participants (new and returning) before, during, and after each Challenge, I feel that the concern over gross number of submissions (on both an individual and a group level) is perhaps beginning to be just a bit too pronounced. Of course, I do tend to be a....well, a "Negative Nelly", but my characteristic allergies to fun and sunshine and other generally life-affirming propositions aside, I've also seen the overall quality of the submissions during the Challenges decline over time--oddly, more amongst returning participants than amongst new ones. Now, because we are dealing with a group of generally capable individuals, it's not as though we have seen (or are likely to see) a drop from "everything's an 8!" to "this is just barely acceptable", but the difference has been noticeable enough that more of the staff than just grumpy old Nightgaunt have marked it. Speaking amongst ourselves, we've considered the idea of changing the Challenge in some way, perhaps to put that implicit sense of individual competition and glory-thirst to good use (or a different kind of good use for a change, if one wants to argue that point), but nothing is yet set in stone.

1200 rewiews... WOW!

Gongratulations!