D20 Review Section Reputation

[JacktheRabbit]

Are we running the risk here at ENWorld of having the D20 review section lose its meaning and quality?

Here is a link to illustrate an example.

http://www.enworld.org/d20reviews.asp?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=Andorax&product=TOEE

Three people came over from MonteCook.com precisely with the agenda of giving RTTTOEE reviews of 5 to boost its average over 3.5

When I pointed this out the 3rd reviewer straight out said that giving an objective review is not a requirement so too bad for me. If this is the case then I think I shall never bother to post a review again or even read the reviews of anyone beyond the staff reviewers here at ENWorld.

If it is so blantantly rubbed in everyones face that these were artifical average raising reviews (which directly violate the D20 review rules) and nothing is done then what does the review section even mean any more.

 

[Psion]

Doc, I am sorry you feel that way, but we do have standards in place, and none of the reviews you refer to violate those standards. If they had, I would have deleted them.

Everyone has a right to an opinion, and so long as the reviewers don't have a pre-existing bias (such as working for the company that produced a product) they have a right to contribute their opinion just as much as you do. I don't sense that any of the reviewers are "overcompensating" to get the score raised; their rating seems to reflect their review.

Just what do you suggest I do with these reviews? I am not willing to pretend that I can read their minds and guess what they really think of the product. Sorry, I have to take them at face value. In short, sorry you feel that they "artificially" raised the average, but I do not feel that is the case, and it is my determination to make.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Psion. go read that third review again and please tell me what information about RTTTOEE module is actually in the review.

It contains.

1. A short essay on what a module is.

2. A short essay on what a campaign is.

3. An advertisement for Montecook.com and how you can get lots of support for RTTTOEE there.

At no point does the reviewer say ANYTHING about the module itself.

Furthermore the reviewer blantantly says his review is biased. This means it violates the last rule listed under the D20 review section rule that says reviews written to do nothing but artificially raise a products rating will not only be deleted by result in EVERY review that person has posted be deleted as well.

Tell me please how this review does not fit what I wrote above.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

This is tangential to the discussion, but since Psion is here - I haven't been able to login to the reviews page in forever. I've tried every password I can think of that I would have used, but no luck. I'd like some help - I've posted about it in Meta, and e-mailed Morrus, but no luck (I know Morrus is busy, so this isn't a criticism).

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Here is some more for you.

http://pub58.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm17.showMessage?topicID=1862.topic

The third reviewer started this thread at MonteCook.com with the specific intentions of having people come over here and raise the products review rating above its "mere 3.6".

If that does not smack of artifically elevating the products rating then I do not know what does.

 

[Psion]

At no point does the reviewer say ANYTHING about the module itself.

Actually it does. I just went back and took a look. He talks about how the modle is based on its own set of assumptions. He talks about how it showcases monsters. Sorry, I beg to differ that he does not talk about the product.

Furthermore the reviewer blantantly says his review is biased. This means it violates the last rule listed under the D20 review section rule that says reviews written to do nothing but artificially raise a products rating will not only be deleted by result in EVERY review that person has posted be deleted as well.

The guidelines regarding "biased" are what I said above -- if you have a conflict of interessts. Biased in the sense he meant it -- i.e., liking the product -- is not only condoned, it's expected.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Based on assumtions?

Showcase of monsters?

What does that tell me? Nothing at all. The average new to Dnd gamer at 3E will not have nor be able to get the Origional Temple of Elemental Evil. So the first comment means nothing at all. The second comment can be taken so many ways it means nothing. Does this mean the old style of tons of monsters with no logic as to why they are there or getting along? Or just a good variety.

Also the review gives me no details over why this module rates as the best of the best.

Is it solid in rules interpretation? What is treasure like in it? Is it a dungeon crawl or is there lots of NPC interaction? How are the maps? Are there many typos or missing information?

If I was a new DM with a 4th level party this review wouldnt do anything to tell me if this module could fit my party in the least. That I say makes it an invalid review.

 

[Psion]

Here is some more for you.

http://pub58.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm17.showMessage?topicID=1862.topic

The third reviewer started this thread at MonteCook.com with the specific intentions of having people come over here and raise the products review rating above its "mere 3.6".

If that does not smack of artifically elevating the products rating then I do not know what does.

If anyone posting had said "let's all go over there and post fives", then I would have thought that. But having fans of a product on a forum dediated to a product drawing attention to the fact that it has received some reviews is not sufficient to have the reviews deleted. Does it surprise me in the least bit that people who hang out at a forum dedicated to a product give it a five? No.

Deleting the reviews would not be fair to them. They have their say in the review average just as much as you do. You, on the other hand, are asking me to intervene to delete favorable reviews? THAT would be giving you more than your fair say.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Between his topic on Montecook.com and his comment about no intention of giving an objective review I at least feel that the inferred meaning is to above all raise the rating of the product.

 

[Khan the Warlord]

Doc, I believe Psion's own comments in the review you linked to answer your concern better than any continuing debate:

So long as they all have complete reviews (the last two push it -- this one is good) and they are in line with the rating, I don't see the problem. Like I commented in another review, a "rally" is no reason to remove reviews. If it were, I think Malahavoc would hardly be the only offender, as the NG and KoK boards have already been known to engage in this behavior. When they did, I deleted the borderline reviews, but really have no reasonable choice but to let the resonable reivews stand.

And frankly, I'm inclined to agree with him -- as long as the review is "complete".