SandraWinters said:
I myself have been a reviewer for about 7 months now, and I have some questions about the terminology used throughout this topic.
How would you define who a "professional" reviewer is? If a reviewer has completed an estimated number of reviews, does that make them a professional? Or would you consider a reviewer "profressional" if he or she has written reviews for several different websites or publications? Or, is it the quality that sets him or her apart? And, who would you consider a newbie (aside from those who have never written reviews before)? About how many reviews would someone have to write before he or she is no longer considered a newbie. In simpler terms, how do you define a "professional" and a "newbie?"
I'm really looking for your subjective opinions here. I know that there isn't one definite answer to these questions, but I'd like to get an idea of what the general consensus is.
Heh, hello can 'o worms...
To me a professional is one who's paid to review. Ok, now that that's out of the way *ROFL* we can talk about professional rpg reviewers.
Professional to me is someone who has a lot of reviews (preferrably 20+), who is offically associated with a reputable site/magazine, and who tends to review items that have been sent to him or her from publishers more than he or she reviews self-purchased material. To me, that shows a connection between producer and reviewer indicating a "higher level" of reviewer.
All of the above, including the paid for bit, has nothing to do with the quality of the review or reviewer to me. Quality is something that's highly subjective. I'd much more rather have a consistant reviewer; a reviewer who produces reviews that are all of the same tone, consideration, and general bias. Doing so makes it easier on the readers, given time, to make their own appraisal of the "quality" of the reviewer and allows publishers to make better decisions on who to send review copies out to.
That sounds kinda mercenary, and I suppose it is, but I'd rather keep giving someone who's given my products average reviews (say 3 out of 5) while maintaining the same style, tone, and thoroughness in every review than send out a review copy to someone whose given me some great reviews and some pans (like a 1 here and 5 there) who's review style is erratic. Consistancy in style, tone, and thoroughness are most important to me. The actual rating of the product isn't so important to me as product quality varies, but I'd like review "quality" to be as consistant as possible.
joe b.
I'd have to say that I do rely heavily on reviews of other people's products in deciding what to purchase for game. And I'd have to say that I don't distinguish between 'professional' and 'nonprofessional' reviewers in making my choice. My procedure is to see what the reviewer has to say about the product, and how close their tastes are to my own. For example, a good review from someone whose game tastes are the total opposite of mine tranlates into a recommendation not to buy, etc. So I would say that an open call for reviewers is a pretty good idea. Not only will you get reviews faster, on average, than if you're relying on an overworked reviewer, but people like myself will judge the review by the review, so to speak, and not by the reviewer. 
