Quality Control

Any thoughts on quality control in terms of what passes as an actual review on the site?  I mean there was the user the other day who posted ratings out of 10 as “reviews” (when there’s already a rating system in place) and just clogged the feed up until other reviews dropped in.  Not saying we should have war and peace on every album review but some reviews are like 4 lines long which isn’t really that informative.  

Not trying to provoke conflict here, just think the danger of the site becoming a “comment” site as opposed to a review site is a shame.

I totally agree, and already have a plan that I'm trying to implement. Thanks!

As someone who occasionally throws out a review that spans only a couple of lines, I would warn against being too dogmatic about what qualifies as a review, or you end up with a situation like metal archives where people just don't bother reviewing at all as it's just too much hassle and ends up being no fun!

Personally, I just want to give people a flavour of what an album is like so that they can make up their own minds about it, if it sounds like the kind of thing they're would be into, not bore them shitless with irrelevant details or tell them what they should think about it. 

Maybe my opinion of the purpose of a review is different to others, but there are websites that have some terribly self-important reviews that just feel like the reviewer is showing off how intellectual and insightful they are, not how an album feels to them, which I think is way more important than trying to display one's intellectual superiority.

Just saying...

Agree w/ Sonny.  A couple of paragraphs are great for me.  

Reviewing is almost like a guitar solo...easy to go on and on after everyone stops listening.

I think Ben's intention is to get away from some of the RYM reviews, like one I saw for a metal record that just said "This is music for people who still  ride bikes to school" or something like that.  Not a review.