A rant about D20 Magazine Rack

[blackshirt5]

I somewhat agree. While I think that it's appropriate to compare and contrast products(for example, if I were to review the Quintessential Paladin once I get it, I'd surely draw comparisons between QP and Defenders of the Faith, because they're both Paladin splats). What I don't think is appropriate is saying things like "This is what Heroes of High Favor: Dwarves should have been" is appropriate in the Hammer and Helm review.

Also, I still contend that lowering something's score(such as the 3.5 both books got because they're "primarily restricted to dwarves") when reviewing a race or class splatbook is wrong.

 

[Psion]

If the number ratings don't count for much, and can be freely ignored (or randomly assigned) by reviewers and readers, why use them at all?

I see it as a bell curve sort of thing. Different people use different criteria for evaluating a product. Sometimes those criteria are not credible, and I try to weed out such instances, but you are still going to see some disagreement about how good a given product is.

You take several such products, you sort of have a ballpark that gives you SOME indication of the quality of the product, but we quite simply don't have enough reviews to make that number rigorous. But it a fair quick guide as can be had.

However, my point is that regardless of the aggregate opinion, the value to a specific reader may vary wildly because the readers have their only criteria and needs. The only way to truly tell if a product will be useful to YOU specifically is by reading the review and getting an idea of what is in there and if the reviewers criteria match yours.

So, in short, the numbers are not totally worthless, but their use is limited and there comes a point that the effort taken to try to make it more accurate will not really acheive much given the inherent statistical limits to how much they can convey. If you want a measure more accurate than what the numbers can convey, you are well advised to read the review and (possibly) indentify reviewers who pay attention to the factors YOU think are important. (Which is why I could see supporting the idea of splitting up the d20 MR into the actual reviewers.)

 

[blackshirt5]

Psion, do you think a poll would be in order, on whether or not D20 MR should split up into it's different reviewers, for the reader's benefits? I think we should let the community decide.

 

[Ghostwind]

Doc, if you were paying attention to my initial reply, I did say that there are older reviews that do not carry a name. Those were done by me.

You will also note in both postings of HoHF, that I put a note stating I modifed the score after talking to Ben (Wulf) Durbin about some factual errors I made in calculations and his intent behind the series. I still maintain that the overall book could have been much better. However, I have been pleased with improvements in the series and felt that Elves and Half-Orcs were quite good and have even told Ben this on a couple of occasions. How many times does it need to be said that a review represents an opinion? There are many occasions where I disagree with the reviews of others (especially regarding my own works, which is natural) but I still respect the right of that reviewer to have his opinion regardless of the outcome.

You are digging up a review that was done nearly one year ago to illustrate a point that, for some reason, my site is not fit to have reviews posted on EN World. Whether it is me, personally that you have a dislike for, or my site in general, I couldn't care less. We'll both agree that neither of us will ever see eye to eye regarding reviews.

The fact remains that Morrus runs the site and relies on his moderators to help police it if the reviews don't meet with the standards he has established. Until ownership of the site changes or Morrus and I agree to discontinue our arrangement, the d20 MR will continue to maintain a cross posting presence on EN World. If that is unacceptable, then take it up with Morrus.

 

[Psion]

Also, I still contend that lowering something's score(such as the 3.5 both books got because they're "primarily restricted to dwarves") when reviewing a race or class splatbook is wrong.

You present an interesting conundrum, one which I am not willing to say is right one way or the other.

I agree that if you are writing a book about Dwarves, then requiring the book to be applicable beyond dwarves may be a bit much to ask.

That said, if it is, does it not increase the utility of the product if it is? For example, Plot & Poison has alternative magic item creation and power component rules I can use anywhere; would that not be more useful than a book of Drow alone?

My personal take is "give points for broad support, but don't dock for lack of it." But I don't really object to one method or the other when considering if a review should stand.

 

[Psion]

Psion, do you think a poll would be in order, on whether or not D20 MR should split up into it's different reviewers, for the reader's benefits?

(shrug)
I don't know that it's that big of a deal that it needs to go up for a poll. I imagine (and I am totally guessing here, as I have not discussed the issue with Morrus and Mr. Creech) is that we will do it if it is practical (segregating the reviews will take time, possibly requiring volunteers), otherwise not.

 

[Ghostwind]

Since the HOHF review is causing such an issue, I ask the moderators to delete it.

Secondly, there will be no need for a poll concerning different logins because I will not do it. The website is the affiliate reviewer, not each individual member of my staff. The name is posted at the top of "nearly" every review (with the exception of the older ones). There is no reason why a person cannot simply hit the back button if he or she sees it is written by someone that is disliked.

The amount of work that is spent on the d20 MR is considerable, as is the time I spend cross-posting reviews. To have to continually switch accounts when posting reviews will be too time consuming. I believe having the name of the reviewer at the top of the page should be sufficient. Other than a very small handful of people (with Doc being at the forefront), no one has openly had an issue with this.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I still maintain that the overall book could have been much better.

A fair criticism, and I have worked to improve each book since, based in large part on specific feedback from reviews.

I think it is fair to say that a publisher should be open to specific criticism from a professional reviewer-- but a professional reviewer should be open to criticism from the public he serves, too.

Your review of DWARVES, specifically, spoke volumes more about you as a reviewer than it did about the book you were reviewing. Your reviews have grown since then, as I hope the books in my series have.

Just to comment on the larger issue of the thread, I don't have a problem with the way d20MR reviews are posted here. I'd resist any additional work on Steve's part (splitting up the reviews) that drove his reviews away and resulted in fewer ENworld reviews overall.

The number system in general, I can do without-- I always read the whole review. But I have to admit-- the number system draws my eye to certain reviews. I like to scan for those rare 5's (and yes, those equally rare 3's or lower) to see what warranted the shift from the ubiquitous 4 rating.

Wulf

 

[Ghostwind]

Wulf-

Drop me an email, the address I have for you isn't valid apparently.

Thanks.

 

[whtknt]

D20 M.R. reviews

I am a d20 M.R. reviewer. Each week, I donate (dare I say, generously donate?) several hours of my free time to review the latest d20 products. Often this time investment cuts into personal time with my wife, my lunch hour, or time I could spend working on other things. I do not get paid for this and I am not a professional reviewer. I provide this time willingly because I'd like to think that I am helping people make informed decisions about the latest d20 products.

When I review a product, I try to do so with a critical eye. I do not allow the publisher or the author's credentials to sway my thinking. I try to provide the best and most objective review possible, though if I really don't like something, I'll tell you that. It just so happens that a lot of the products that I've been reviewing lately have been high-quality. A review is someone's opinion. Yours may vary greatly from mine. I tend to disagree with about 75% of everything that Ebert and Roper have to say, but that doesn't make them bad reviewers.

I assumed that because I wasn't getting any feedback here, that my reviews were being received fondly. Apparently, it's because people have stopped reading any review from d20 M.R. If you disagree with me, post it, either here or at the d20 Magazine Rack and I will respond. I'll tell you why I feel the way I do about something. I don't promise you'll like the answer, but I will address your concerns. If I don't hear from you, I assume that I'm doing a good job.

Finally, we come to the bottom line. If you think you can do a better job, then why don't you give up your free time to produce a review? It's not as easy as everyone seems to think. Reviewing is a big investment of time and effort, not to mention money. When you just look at the score and offhandedly discard the review, you're doing yourself and the reviewer a grave injustice.