D20 Review Section Reputation

[JacktheRabbit]

Just my opinion, but I think this is wrong. Every review should be written as if it is the only review for a product. Otherwise anyone who reviews a product already reviewed by Simon Collins or Psion could skip telling you anything meaningful about the product, throw out a bit of fluff and then throw a score on it.

Like I said, just my opinion but each review should qualify as a review entirely on its own.

I don't understand....the reviewer in question clearly likes RttToEE. He said right at the beginning that he wasn't going to cover aspects of the adventure that had alread been covered. I find it useful that he mentions montecook.com. It lets you know where he's coming from.

 

[Ghostwind]

Just my opinion, but I think this is wrong. Every review should be written as if it is the only review for a product.

I disagree with that to a certain extent. In the case in question, the reviewer stated that he didn't want to cover aspects that had been thoroughly covered numerous times. However, he did address different aspects that had not really been addressed in most reviews of that product. In this particular case, what he did was accpetable because there are so many other reviews. I think you can balance your review based on what else is out there. If you are reviewing a product that is over a year old and has several reviews already to its credit in the same location as yours will be posted, why not take a different approach? I would rather read two or three reviews that attack the book from different angles than reviews that are nearly carbon copies of each other. Just my thoughts however...

 

[jester47]

Clarifications.

First off I will never write a review that was not useful and did not give a full rundown of a product. My statement at the end of my last post on this thread was more a joke than a threat.

As for my comments on bluffside- I am refering to the print edition of Brief Expeditions to Bluffside. I have not seen the download, and I have not seen Bluffside city on the edge.

My comments about BEtB are based on a quick examination. I liked the idea and what they were trying to do with the layout however it did not catch my eye and it seemed crude. I tried to read through it but it just did not seem to flow.

Now that I have clarified those things I do plan on writing reviews on some things. The problem here is time. I will see what I can do however as I think I can provide fun and in depth reviews from angles that others do not really cover.

Aaron.

 

[mearls]

The Ranking System

I really, really don't like the 1 - 5 scale used in the reviews and would like to see it go. I think it helps breed exactly the sort of problem with people getting so fixated on the rankings and a project's overall rating. The 1 - 5 rating is inherently meaningless. I'd rather see reviewers forced to write more about the product and their reactions to it rather than pidgeonholing books with a rating. The reviews should serve to inform readers on a product and the reviewer's reaction to it. I don't see the scale helping to do that. I've never, ever relied on the ratings to guide purchases, since all too often they are skewed by fans who want to pump up a product or knock down a highly rated book they don't happen to like.

 

[Khan the Warlord]

Re: The Ranking System

I really, really don't like the 1 - 5 scale used in the reviews and would like to see it go. I think it helps breed exactly the sort of problem with people getting so fixated on the rankings and a project's overall rating. The 1 - 5 rating is inherently meaningless. I'd rather see reviewers forced to write more about the product and their reactions to it rather than pidgeonholing books with a rating. The reviews should serve to inform readers on a product and the reviewer's reaction to it. I don't see the scale helping to do that. I've never, ever relied on the ratings to guide purchases, since all too often they are skewed by fans who want to pump up a product or knock down a highly rated book they don't happen to like.

I agree with Mike here. I would rather just see EN World offer a reviewer the space to write a complete review of a product and maybe a simple "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" option.

Basically, there isn't any "average" -- you should either promote the purchase of the product or not.

 

[jester47]

Re: The Ranking System

I really, really don't like the 1 - 5 scale used in the reviews and would like to see it go. I think it helps breed exactly the sort of problem with people getting so fixated on the rankings and a project's overall rating. The 1 - 5 rating is inherently meaningless. I'd rather see reviewers forced to write more about the product and their reactions to it rather than pidgeonholing books with a rating. The reviews should serve to inform readers on a product and the reviewer's reaction to it. I don't see the scale helping to do that. I've never, ever relied on the ratings to guide purchases, since all too often they are skewed by fans who want to pump up a product or knock down a highly rated book they don't happen to like.

In truth I severely agree with you. Giveing the 1-5 rating the boot would only get you people that wanted to write informed reviews rather than pump up the ratings of thier favorite authors.

Aaron.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Conversely, as a consumer I've always liked reviews or evaluations with number rankings. I'd prefer that it was 1-10 rather than 1-5, though.

Maybe there could be a minimum/maximum word count for reviews?

 

[Ghostwind]

I also agree the single 1-5 scale is too restrictive as it is now. To include a rating, it should reflect an average of several rated factors. Some books do very well with subject content and art but suck when editing occurs. Others are put together very well but lack originality. Perhaps a change in the rating system itself to include 3-5 scores that would give an average?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

That is where we disagree. I don't see the author of the review covering any sections at all. He says he won't go into detail of the module. Then he goes onto short essays on what a module is and what a campaign is.

Then he makes mention that the module is a bit of an advertisement for the Monster Manual. A fac that is covered by several other reviews.

So my main objection is that his entire review is fluff so that he meets the length requirement to keep his review from being deleted.

I disagree with that to a certain extent. In the case in question, the reviewer stated that he didn't want to cover aspects that had been thoroughly covered numerous times. However, he did address different aspects that had not really been addressed in most reviews of that product. In this particular case, what he did was accpetable because there are so many other reviews. I think you can balance your review based on what else is out there. If you are reviewing a product that is over a year old and has several reviews already to its credit in the same location as yours will be posted, why not take a different approach? I would rather read two or three reviews that attack the book from different angles than reviews that are nearly carbon copies of each other. Just my thoughts however...

 

[Crothian]

Conversely, as a consumer I've always liked reviews or evaluations with number rankings. I'd prefer that it was 1-10 rather than 1-5, though.

Maybe there could be a minimum/maximum word count for reviews?

1-10 would be better then 1-5. But since I don't even knoiw if it can be easily changed, it might not be wortrh the hassle.

As for the minimum/maximium word count, that could be tough. I've done 7 reviews and they range from 509 words to 2,320 words. What would be to big? What would be too small?

I do think that some of the reviews up should be deleted. But it's not my call. Maybe stricted requirements are needed.