Raging Swan's ENNIES Judge?

[Crothian]

Being a reviewer was great if it wasn't for the publishers.

 

[Morrus]

The reviewer only does 4 or 5 and the actual content is what led to the pattern of reviews, which according to DriveThru's initial take calls for a review of their review system.

I'm not quite sure why the single review sometimes seems of more immediate interest than the pattern of reviewing. EN has product on DriveThru and I seem to recall that a lot of investment went into high quality Pathfinder materials. imo with a more level playing field that content might have/ would stand out even more from the crowd.

We have product there, but we very rarely get reviewed (there or in general). I worked out a few months ago that of over 500 specifically requested review copies from reviewers around the web over a couple of years, we got something like 7 reviews*. The other 490+ just took/downloaded the product and I never heard from them again. We get a few more customer reviews, though, fortunately, and they tend to be positive.


*I can't remember the exact figures (I think I tweeted them at the time) but it was a ridiculously small percentage.

 

[nedjer]

Yeah, well, that's just screwy. The numerical value should somehow correlate to the text. If it doesn't, no stuff their review system needs to be reviewed!

A scientist - straight to the data Unfortunately, there's some further nonsense going on in the background, which suggests I should avoid getting into Morrus' last post.

(I also still feel a bit guilty for possibly, previously, doing more damage to this forum than the hackers with my 'righteous' posts of old, which - while well-intentioned - probably didn't make for the most entertaining discussions.

Imo comparison between my own product and the next review was necessary for the comparison of content rather than quibbling over a 4/5. When I did Tech blogging the sub-editors constantly sent back 1 or 2 out of 5 first time to milk more content out of you. That's how it was.

I believe the difference of rating between the products is at odds with a significant gap in value - and I could hardly set up someone else's product against it. It's up to DriveThru to say what their full, instead of first, reply is on the pattern of reviews and ratings.

Following two further posts by the guy running Raging Swan and another frequent reviewer of their products I have fired a first shot across their bows on my blog. If it appears out of order - well I feel it's proportionate and it is tied to an appeal to all involved to return to base. Fff their in a moment.

 

[nedjer]

That doesn't add up to me at all given the size of EN's following and profile. However, as just posted I believe I should put an interesting discussion off for the time being.

EN world product owners who've enjoyed or seriously enjoyed an EN product - did you find time to post a short review?

 

[nightwind1]

It's a rant about a bad review with accusations of bias because that reviewer gave another company a bunch of good reviews. With an added bit about how the reviewer was elected as an ENnies judge this year.

I have no idea as to the truth of it, but I have learned one thing over the last 12 years -- never complain publicly about a bad review. Because even when you're right, you come across as wrong. At the very most, a polite, friendly correction of actual factual errors, but even then you need to be careful.

I don't know how much effect the review would ever have, but rants like these tend to be detrimental. My professional PR advice would be to remove it.

If you publish, you get bad reviews. There's no way around that, and you won't agree with them all.

It wasn't even a BAD review. Megan Robertson gave the product 4 out of 5 stars. I don't know in what world that's a bad review.

 

[Creighton]

Creighton of Raging Swan Press here. I have posted a reply to the original poster's accusations at my blog. I would have posted it here, but for some reason I couldn't format it properly (I couldn't seem to start a new paragraph and so everything just blended together which made it jolly hard to read). I hope my post sets the record straight.

 

[Mark Chance]

Setting the record straight is often like ice skating uphill.

 

[Umbran]

I believe the difference of rating between the products is at odds with a significant gap in value

With respect - other people's reviews don't have to follow *YOUR* beliefs. If everyone valued the same things you did, there'd be no point in ever having more than one review.

 

[nedjer]

With respect - other people's reviews don't have to follow *YOUR* beliefs. If everyone valued the same things you did, there'd be no point in ever having more than one review.

Fair comment - obvious features such as length/ cost - suggested to me and, it appears others, that it makes a reasonable comparison. I asked for a 'cease fire' last night, but Creighton indicated in writing that he wished to post more and to more forums.

I've boiled it down to a single, non-personal, non-specific issue by asking Creighton 'Should game reviewers work to short codes of practice?'

 

[nedjer]

Creighton - I ask again - please leave it to DriveThru.

Interesting choice of place to visit - I have not been in ENWorld as frequently while making a heap of content over the last year, but the place is thick with my 'convictions' posts on asking for RPGs to be less sexist/ more accessible to kids/ not with the Edition Wars . . .

You are not dealing with someone who spends days fretting over a single review. You are dealing with someone who bumped into a broad system that doesn't appear to offer a level playing field for all publishers and players.

So not an attack on companies or individuals - but so a new player or a kid unwrapping a RPG product is more than happy with the contents/ it does what it says on the tin. There is no defeat or concession intended or implied if you were to agree that reviews should say what they are covering. Equally, no need to rake over what's done - when we could be inputting to a better system.