Post by Arnaldo August 4, 2012 (21 of 88)
|
|
zeus said:
... My original idea for this site was to use simple thumbs up/down ratings. The orthodoxy though seems to be stars so I went with this, then I was prevailed upon to go to half stars.
... I have 826 SA-CDs. Most purchased, but augmented by generous contributions by Morten Lindberg, Ray Kimber etc. It matters not because I don't do reviews here. And if you look at the site reviews where the disc may or may not be a freebie, there's a LOT of work in these for which a freebie is poor recompense. I'm satisfied of editorial integrity and you should be as well.
... Nobody is going to buy something or not based solely on the number of stars. It's what's said in the review that's the real meat and even then you don't have to agree with the thrust of a particular review to glean some worthwhile information from it.
Starting with a distinction, most occasional reviewers are usually motivated to review only those recordings that stir very strong emotions, generally positive, thus their elevated percentage of high ratings. Nothing wrong with that.
The issue of inflated ratings lies really with official reviewers, regardless of whether they do it for freebies, peanuts or love of music. Their enthusiastic response to almost every new arrival seems statistically improbable, a trend which would have been flagged by any experienced media professional. And whether the enthusiasm comes off in the text, ratings, thumbs up or yodeling, is of no consequence whatsoever, except in diverting the focus of the discussion, the point being that the content of reviews is reflected in the ratings and vice-versa.
Suffice to say that in the end, the section reads more like marketing than reviewing, at least from a consumer's perspective. As a result, after spending a small fortune on highly praised duds, I now automatically deduct one or two stars and a few positive adjectives from the official reviewers, relying instead on occasional reviewers and forum comments.
As an aside, we should be allowed to edit old reviews ad infinitum, just like the official dudes. Familiarity with specific recordings brings new insights, which should only enhance the usefulness of updated reviews. Another "equal opportunity" initiative would be to open up official reviews to helpfulness ratings, just like everybody else.
|
|
|
Post by DSD August 4, 2012 (22 of 88)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
...most occasional reviewers are usually motivated to review only those recordings that stir very strong emotions...
The site reviewers review everything. You can find them by looking for "Copyright©(name) and SA-CD.net" following the review and they lack the "Was this review helpful to you?" YES-NO voting buttons.
However the rest of us only review when we have something important to say. For me I only do a formal review if I really love or really hate an SACD. If the SACD just sounds good to great but doesn't bring forth colorful adjectives I'm not motivated to review it.
So when I see SACD reviews by regular members I also believe they either love or hate the SACD so I read the review to find out why.
|
|
|
Post by zeus August 4, 2012 (23 of 88)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
Suffice to say that in the end, the section reads more like marketing than reviewing, at least from a consumer's perspective.
The only thing that's required to post a review here is a valid email address. There's nothing written anywhere that says reviews have to be positive ... in fact negative reviews are just as useful. And if people disagree with what's been written, they're free to write a contrary review. The system is self counterbalancing. All really that you're saying is that most are more enthusiastic than you are.
As for updating reviews I may give consideration to allowing an addendum after a set time, but really it's best to give the disc some time before putting your thoughts into words. There's no urgency to get reviews out.
|
|
|
Post by Arnaldo August 4, 2012 (24 of 88)
|
|
zeus said:
... All really that you're saying is that most are more enthusiastic than you are.
That's not what I said, but I can see why you'd like to think so. Instead, I made a clear distinction between official and occasional reviewers, which you chose to conveniently ignore under the guise of "most."
Again, I clearly pointed out that the official reviewers' "enthusiastic response to almost every new arrival seems statistically improbable, a trend which would have been flagged by any experienced media professional." Thus my surprise that official site reviews - which fall under your editorial responsibility, since they're copyrighted by SA-CD.net - seem to read "more like marketing than reviewing."
Either way, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter and your (occasional) openness to (some) constructive suggestions.
:-)
|
|
|
Post by Oakland August 4, 2012 (25 of 88)
|
|
****Vinyl.........more realistic than any digital format.*****
You listen in stereo?
Robert C. Lang
|
|
|
Post by wehecht August 4, 2012 (26 of 88)
|
|
hiredfox said:
You cannot be serious! Too young to remember vinyl?
Well, it's still with us and better than ever and a zillion times more realistic than any digital format.
I'm 65, still have vinyl in my collection, and have one word for this assertion: Piffle!
|
|
|
Post by jazz1 August 4, 2012 (27 of 88)
|
|
Oakland said:
You listen in stereo?
Robert C. Lang
Like most of us !!! :-)
The fact is that some people do prefer vinyl, and I do not see anything wrong with that.
But coming back to star ratings the fact that the best score is 5 I am sure is a problem. If you look at "Wine spectator" their rating goes to 100 thus very few wines do get 100, in actual fact it is very rare, and I am sure if we had such system few SACD's would ever score 100. One would really think twice before giving 100. Even if the maximum score was 20, few reviewers would score 20.
jazz1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
The issue of inflated ratings lies really with official reviewers, regardless of whether they do it for freebies, peanuts or love of music. Their enthusiastic response to almost every new arrival seems statistically improbable ...
Indeed. Statistically improbable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSD said:
The site reviewers ... lack the "Was this review helpful to you?" YES-NO voting buttons.
Maybe THAT is the problem.
Why artificially shelter the site reviewer's from the "Helpful or not" feedback mechanism? Especially, when the site reviews are the main offenders in serial over-valuation.
|
|
|
Post by zeus August 5, 2012 (30 of 88)
|
|
jazz1 said:
But coming back to star ratings the fact that the best score is 5 I am sure is a problem.
Yet more vague criticism and innuendo from posters whose own reviews are predominantly 5 stars.
What then do you suggest? I'm all ears.
|
|
