Thread: Review box stuffing?

Posts: 11
Page: 1 2 next

Post by randy October 8, 2003 (1 of 11)
I am concerned about the validity of recent reviews of selections available on the cdbaby.com website. What does everyone else think?

On 3 Oct, David Elias - The Window was reviewed by muzikwebgal. Her profile includes a link to "a music promotion website" run by her. This is fair enough--at least we know where she is coming from--although by my understanding of the rules she should not have provided a rating.

On 6 Oct, another review of the above was provided by Kaisafir. This review sounded the most genuine of the four.

Then there are the reviews of Suitcase Pimps - Love Is Grand posted by muzickbizkid and MusicFan on 5 and 6 Oct. These seemed to be a bit too contrived, including each starting by mentioning where the selection is available.

The only other activity by any of the above reviewers has been one forum posting also promoting these albums, which then received a convenient response by one of the artists.

Each of the above reviewers gave top ratings to the selections reviewed. Each has reviewed only one selection. Three of the four reviewers give no information in his profile other than a name. One reviewer didn't even bother to type his name correctly. Although I am not privy to this information, I can only assume that the reviewers registered immediately before posting the reviews.

In fairness I like all of the above selections, based on the samples available on cdbaby (which has the best quality samples I've found this side of telarc.com).

This smells fishy to me. Am I off the mark?

Post by muzickbizkid October 8, 2003 (2 of 11)
randy said:

I am concerned about the validity of recent reviews of selections available on the cdbaby.com website. What does everyone else think?

On 3 Oct, David Elias - The Window was reviewed by muzikwebgal. Her profile includes a link to "a music promotion website" run by her. This is fair enough--at least we know where she is coming from--although by my understanding of the rules she should not have provided a rating.

On 6 Oct, another review of the above was provided by Kaisafir. This review sounded the most genuine of the four.

Then there are the reviews of Suitcase Pimps - Love Is Grand posted by muzickbizkid and MusicFan on 5 and 6 Oct. These seemed to be a bit too contrived, including each starting by mentioning where the selection is available.

The only other activity by any of the above reviewers has been one forum posting also promoting these albums, which then received a convenient response by one of the artists.

Each of the above reviewers gave top ratings to the selections reviewed. Each has reviewed only one selection. Three of the four reviewers give no information in his profile other than a name. One reviewer didn't even bother to type his name correctly. Although I am not privy to this information, I can only assume that the reviewers registered immediately before posting the reviews.

In fairness I like all of the above selections, based on the samples available on cdbaby (which has the best quality samples I've found this side of telarc.com).

This smells fishy to me. Am I off the mark?

I understand your concern, but not to worry. There is a shortage of good SACD's out there, not the classic stuff, there is plenty of that (Dark side of the moon comes to mind). But new music is hard to find especially rock. I'm a fan of the "little guy" and discovering David Elias and Suitcase Pimps was a good find for me. I don't think a review of Pink Floyd or Steely Dan is really necessary, everyone knows those guys are great. Just my two cents.

Post by david elias October 8, 2003 (3 of 11)
This smells fishy to me. Am I off the mark?
I guess I should reply here even though I'm not interested in stirring things up. I had submitted my SACD to MuzikReviewz.com without ever having heard of them before. I have been sending my new disc out to various magazines and online places for review. Mary Rudy received it and loved it. She wrote her review without knowing anything about me other than the disc I sent her.

When I paid to add my disc to the featured SACD's on sacdinfo.com's home page, Stephen suggested I get some reviews to help cultivate interest in the release. So I then asked Mary if she would post a review online here. I didn't ask her to rate it or not rate it. I'm not sure what the rules there are. I thought they were obvious.

Kaisafir (aka Peter) is someone who knows much of my music over many years. I asked him to write a review online, again to support Stephen's suggestion of online sacdinfo reviews.

As far as the Hi-Rez forum comments on my SACD by Michael Bishop, you could do a search on Google of 'michael bishop sacd' and see why I was so impressed and flattered with his comments. Not responding to this kind of compliment seemed rude. Maybe that was a mistake. To be honest, I am a total novice on forums... so I hope this helps as an explanation and nothing more.

Regards,
David Elias

Post by nucaleena October 8, 2003 (4 of 11)
randy said:

I am concerned about the validity of recent reviews of selections available on the cdbaby.com website. What does everyone else think?

On 3 Oct, David Elias - The Window was reviewed by muzikwebgal. Her profile includes a link to "a music promotion website" run by her. This is fair enough--at least we know where she is coming from--although by my understanding of the rules she should not have provided a rating.

On 6 Oct, another review of the above was provided by Kaisafir. This review sounded the most genuine of the four.

Then there are the reviews of Suitcase Pimps - Love Is Grand posted by muzickbizkid and MusicFan on 5 and 6 Oct. These seemed to be a bit too contrived, including each starting by mentioning where the selection is available.

The only other activity by any of the above reviewers has been one forum posting also promoting these albums, which then received a convenient response by one of the artists.

Each of the above reviewers gave top ratings to the selections reviewed. Each has reviewed only one selection. Three of the four reviewers give no information in his profile other than a name. One reviewer didn't even bother to type his name correctly. Although I am not privy to this information, I can only assume that the reviewers registered immediately before posting the reviews.

In fairness I like all of the above selections, based on the samples available on cdbaby (which has the best quality samples I've found this side of telarc.com).

This smells fishy to me. Am I off the mark?

I have to echo randy's concern. I can understand where David is coming from, - it is almost impossible for small, independent labels and artists to get coverage. I also appreciate that stephen "invited" David to secure a few reviews and that the reviews he secured had been logged elsewhere and David was just taking advantage of their existence. However, securing those reviews is still "review box stuffing" as randy called it. Sorry, David.

The S. Pimps album reviews made me even more suspicious - by virtue of unfamiliarity with the reviewers, - two new users appearing simultaneously out of the blue, - , and their prominent references to a particular sales outlet. Also, neither of those reviewers have entered user details for this site. Not even an email address. Nor have they ever left any other reviews or any other posts than for this album.

It would be a shame to see the site used in this way, though not too surprising, I guess. But it would also be a shame for David and Suitcase Pimps if their albums got a negative reaction from site users on the basis of their clumsiness, 'cos there probably is a need for some support for independents and I can appreciate their desperation in a majors-dominated medium.

It may well also be the case that their albums are as good as the reviews claim them to be. I was interested enough to sample the clips on cdbaby and have to admit that they don't sound bad at all even tho' they're not necessarily my "thing". But even so, the stuffing made me feel undisposed towards the albums.

Maybe a better way of doing this in future would be to run reviews copied from elsewhere under or alongside the advertisement (on the home page) for the album in question, rather than logging it as a member's review. This might provide a useful alternative strategy for anyone who wants to plug an album. There's no real way to prevent stuffing but providing an opportunity for sales pitches might be a way of minimising it in the review pages.

Lets see if we can work something out.

Post by zeus October 8, 2003 (5 of 11)
nucaleena said:

I have to echo randy's concern. I can understand where David is coming from, - it is almost impossible for small, independent labels and artists to get coverage. I also appreciate that stephen "invited" David to secure a few reviews and that the reviews he secured had been logged elsewhere and David was just taking advantage of their existence. However, securing those reviews is still "review box stuffing" as randy called it. Sorry, David.

While I would have preferred that these were "original" reviews (or at least edited for inclusion here) the fact remains that people are free to cross-post their comments wherever they want. I've seen quite a few of your own on amazon and elsewhere. Also, there's nothing to stop others coming along at a later date and countering these with reviews of their own. I personally want to see as many reviews as possible for each title so that visitors will get a more balanced view of a title's "worth".

It's true that I suggested that David "get some reviews". The way this generally works is that review copies of the disc (freebies if you like) are sent to known "reviewers". In this instance I made some suggestions as to suitable individuals. This practise is pretty universal in the industry and is by no means a guarantee of a positive review. I do however draw the line at reviews of my own as I have a vested interest in the site.

It's important for the site's existence that the reviews are seen as "impartial". On the balance of evidence here, I don't think we've crossed that line. But I'm open to any input.

Stephen

Post by azure October 8, 2003 (6 of 11)
The one big positive regarding this forum is actually finding new material.
Lets face it the big music conglomos have the big bucks to promote their product; and I wouldn't be surprised if they have ppl place favourable reviews in certain web sites.
Although, long time contributors to forums get to know other contributors [even if its jus a username] and if they say an album is good or bad, they know where they are coming from.
The good thing about this site [and thanks so much Steve (zeus)] is finding out about new material, for me the Exton label and HMV Japan.
At least this is one area to find out about new independent material.
but I can understand the concern regarding bogus reviews...just for promotion

Post by sound_labs October 9, 2003 (7 of 11)
I guess this can seem a little strange, I mean you don't see that kind of thing happening with a major artist on a mega label. But things are different for the indie crowd.


I reviewed David Elias' -The Window- about a week ago. I write for epinions.com, and I've been writing mostly music reviews for the past three years there. I currently have over 50 reviews posted, and I deleted about 35 old ones over a year ago. Epinions is like way above the reviews you see posted on Amazon by regular folks, but it's not always as serious or as sharp as reviews that are published in major music rags.


Anyway, I gave Elias a good review, and in my opinion, -The Window- is worthy of reference status. The disc sounds amazing. I have nothing to gain or lose by sharing this, I just felt it was important to let everyone know that in this particular case, in my opinion, there is nothing unusual going on here, just a guy trying to get the word out. On another note....... Elias will most likely forever hold the title of first truly indie SACD ever.




- Tony



http://www.epinions.com/user-sslabs

Post by nucaleena October 9, 2003 (8 of 11)
zeus said:

While I would have preferred that these were "original" reviews (or at least edited for inclusion here) the fact remains that people are free to cross-post their comments wherever they want. I've seen quite a few of your own on amazon and elsewhere. Also, there's nothing to stop others coming along at a later date and countering these with reviews of their own. I personally want to see as many reviews as possible for each title so that visitors will get a more balanced view of a title's "worth".

It's true that I suggested that David "get some reviews". The way this generally works is that review copies of the disc (freebies if you like) are sent to known "reviewers". In this instance I made some suggestions as to suitable individuals. This practise is pretty universal in the industry and is by no means a guarantee of a positive review. I do however draw the line at reviews of my own as I have a vested interest in the site.

It's important for the site's existence that the reviews are seen as "impartial". On the balance of evidence here, I don't think we've crossed that line. But I'm open to any input.

Stephen

Just to clarify that I have no problem with cross-reviewing but with soliciting reviews for one's own product and/or stuffing review boxes (as randy put it) concerning one's own product with cross-reviews. The two are quite different in nature.

Cross placing of independent, disinterested (in the true sense) reviews is not a problem. And i say that not just because i've left some of my sacdinfo reviews on amazon, which i've done cos' i've bought a lot of my SACDs from either amazon.com or .uk or, more frequently, from amazon z-shops and auctions. But the total no. of those reviews is less than 1% of my cd/sacd collection (i stopped counting at 3,000). I have absolutely no musical talent (was equally excecrable on every instrument i tried) so there's never a chance of me releasing a disc. Nor am i in any way connected with or derive any income from music companies.

And its the reviews of people who, similarly, have no obligations or pecuniary interests that I want to read, because they may be subjective (of course) but they will also be neutral of anything except enthusiuasm. And there's a world of difference between enthusiasm and commercial hype. Just read the reviews in question, - some are CLEARLY written by PR people, with lots of p-r speak, especially hyperbole. And i think most of us have learned to distrust p-r speak (which is a shame in relation to good products).

The S. Pimps reviews are not as hyperbolic and PR riddled as those for David's album, but they are even more suspicious promotions, - not just by virtue of both stressing a particular sales outlet but because neither has logged any details, not even email addresses, on the site users log. Nor has either contributed any other review or thread apart from on this album.

Having said that, the two albums in question seem pretty good (judging by clips rather than reviews) and there is both a place, and, as zeus (stephen) says, a need for promotion of new and independent product. Maybe one such place can be on this site. I'd have no problem with that at all. I just don't think that such placements/promotions should be in the reviews section.

Post by pann October 9, 2003 (9 of 11)
nucaleena said:

Maybe one such place can be on this site. I'd have no problem with that at all. I just don't think that such placements/promotions should be in the reviews section.

Well said, Paul.
Those are NOT reviews.

Post by Khorn October 9, 2003 (10 of 11)
nucaleena said:

Maybe one such place can be on this site. I'd have no problem with that at all. I just don't think that such placements/promotions should be in the reviews section.

Good idea. A special section open to all those who want to promote their SACD products or even maybe offer "special deals" to readers of this site would make a lot of sense. From what I have understood, the promotion of awareness and fostering discussion of the SACD format is the prime objective of sacdinfo.com.

This should be open to all, even the majors if they want to particpate and stick to the rules.

Page: 1 2 next

Closed