Re. EN World staff reviewers and good/bad reviews

[tensen]

If we want more powerful works than just the typically conformist drivel, then we need to take a different tack with reviews. Otherwise, the common denominator will become the standard, and the same old crap will bore the heck out of everyone. Quiet a few professionals in the industry concur. For instance, Ryan Dancey has said that 95% of the stuff out there is crap.

Um, just because Ryan Dancey repeated a common saying about any product it states your opinion is correct? I beleive the 95% is actually one of the missayings of a popular law.

Sturgeon's Law: "90% of EVERYTHING is crap." Although I ahve heard that Stugeon actually said crud and not crap.. just about every instance of the saying lists it as crap.

 

[Turjan]

That is not the main intent of median weighting. Median weighting is not an effort to fan out the scores. Rather, it is an effort to minimize the impact of the all too common "emotive overcompensator.

Well, I know what a median is supposed to do, and I certainly don't oppose to it being used on this site. Although my personal approach to a defense against this "emotive overcompensator" would be a bit less tolerant, I suppose . At least, if a reviewer declared that he'd given a 3 but chose a 1 for compensation, I would leave him the choice between changing his rating to 3 or getting the review deleted .

No, my main intent within the last paragraphs of my post was to address the problem that the "useful" rating range is too narrow at the moment. I think a 5 should be limited to nearly flawless products. But now, a product that didn't impress me much but isn't completely bad either gets a 3 (this means I could do well without it ), one I find quite useful gets a 4, and a 5 means a definite buy. I would feel much more comfortable if I could give a 4.5 to a product from which I feel that it's really worth every cent although I have found a weak point somewhere, or a 3.5 to a product, which contains a single outstanding idea within a large amount of average (which means more or less boring without being erroneous ) stuff. At least this approach would hopefully save us from the notorious 5...well, maybe .

Of course I'm very glad that there are people out there who write reviews about obvious crap . This is very important, because this helps to differentiate within the wide field of publications which don't get lots of reviews, and nobody knows whether this is because they suck or just because the company has difficulties to get their print copies out to the customers (three guesses whom I mean with this comment ).

Turjan

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

In terms of reviews: Why not have an average and a mean score listed? It might be a slight bit confusing, but not too bad.

So you might have a product listed as 3.4/4.0 with the first being the average review, the second being the mean of the review scores.

 

[AtFantasyReviewGuru]

Sorry, Morrus, my bad, did not realize you were only talking about your own site.

Even then, though, you can post as many guidelines as you like, but don't be surprised if no one follows them. Remember, just about anyone can post reviews at ENWorld, and trying to comb them all to see if they conform doesn't seem like it'd be worth the effort.

 

[Piratecat]

Re: Re: Re. EN World staff reviewers and good/bad reviews

Yes, well, you would think this. ENworld continues to become a less interesting place, less supported by a breadth of publishers, and is running straight downhill for anyone with an opinion. Fanboy raving is acceptable in the message area, but not strong opnions. Yet ironically, sharp critiques with poor reasoning and a lack of understanding or breadth of gaming knowledge, are allowed in the review area, where strict opinion is given an air of more meaning.

ENWorld is a snotty little world of mixed up values. It has no consistent policies except to protect its own ass.

While you're certainly entitled to your own opinion, that opinion becomes somewhat suspect when one realizes that you're a poster who was almost banned on the previous boards due to your systematic, consistent and contemptuous insulting of both other members and industry authors/publishers.

At the time, you left rather than get banned, but you certainly made sure you angered as many people in the process. Returning under a different name doesn't erase your previous behavior. Heh - at least now the sour grapes make a bit more sense.

 

[Warchild]

Re: Re: Re. EN World staff reviewers and good/bad reviews

Yes, well, you would think this. ENworld continues to become a less interesting place, less supported by a breadth of publishers, and is running straight downhill for anyone with an opinion. Fanboy raving is acceptable in the message area, but not strong opnions. Yet ironically, sharp critiques with poor reasoning and a lack of understanding or breadth of gaming knowledge, are allowed in the review area, where strict opinion is given an air of more meaning.

ENWorld is a snotty little world of mixed up values. It has no consistent policies except to protect its own ass.

LOL!!
Wow, Rider! You know, carrying around that much hostility is not good for you, my friend. Relax a bit or you'll hurt yourself.
The Lord knows i am not a conformist, but that view of EN World seems quite out of line with what i see around here. Of course, i could be brainwashed....ya never know.
I like the review system the way it is. Leaving it this way is the only way to insure its validity. Making changes to skew the results(whatever the intent) kills the value of the whole, in my mind. If the Review Pages are going to be a community effort and not a "post here, but only if you think like me" pit trap, then why bother at all?? We have to take the bad with the good. Not everyone thinks alike, heh?
I don't think anyone here is giving the fans any credit what so ever. They can look at a set of reviews and know when someone is grinding an axe or giving an honest and informed review. Especially if the product has 10 people giving it a 5 and 1 person giving it a 1 or 2.
Another point i'd like to make is that we, as a review community, need to develope a thicker skin as well. It can get quite testy around here when someone writes a review or states an opinion that doesn't gibe with the gen-pop view.
I myself got blasted pretty good when i gave a 3-rating to the LGG. Even i gave what i am convinced (and still a 100% so!!) were several good reasons why. I got all kinds of stuff thrown at me, from comments, cold shoulders in the forums, and even a couple nasty emails. I only mention this because i didn't react very well to the criticism and should have had a thicker skin.
I think its quite fair to ask the Publishers to have a thicker skin, but only so long as we give them the same courtesy when they have an issue or two with our reviews.

BTW, your welcome on the Foundation review, Psion!!
If my (and the other's) review of the product helped anyone else from spending hard earned money on that book, it takes the sting of the money i dropped on it!!