[request/rant] To all reviewers, amateur and pro...

[trancejeremy]

Reviewers for pretty much everything else (movies, cds, dvds, etc) in the media not only get free copies, they also get paid and in some cases, get lots of perks (like free trips and goodies and such).

Unfortunately, RPG reviewers are lucky just to get a review copy of a book, but that is fairly common, particularly for a PDF, so IMHO, you should pretty much always assume it was a free copy.

I don't see how you can possibly equate it to "payola" since the time spent writing a review is generally worth far more than the product's price even at a minimum wage job.

And furthermore, a lot of times you get review copies of stuff you don't really want to review. Do you know how painful and boring it is to write 2000 words on a product you have no interest in, or actively dislike?

 

[diaglo]

Of course it holds true for all opinions. So, what would I need to do to improve my reviews in your eyes?

you favor the newer edition and i know you own much of the previous ones.. (Jester..aka James came to my house too)

you do a solid enough review for the newer edition. which i've been playing since 2000. as you know. my DM, Olgar SHiverstone aka Glen Dean, did reviews for Steve (Ghostwind) so i'm pretty good at picking what is key to me... unlike some of the other reviewers on that site.

Spoiler

Bruce for one i never agreed with

but i happen to ref an OD&D campaign.

i need to know how these things will work for me. i get nothing from your reviews in that regard.

Spoiler

whereas some reviewers tend to bash the older editions just b/c or say how things are so much better now without really making me see it. they look lazy to me. i spent 20 hours writing a review for the Herobuilder's Guide which was erased from this site. and more time on the Stronghold builders guide review. yeah, i'm still pissed about that. partly cuz i didn't save it and naively believed all things were equal.

 

[diaglo]

Do you know how painful and boring it is to write 2000 words on a product you have no interest in, or actively dislike?

yes... yes i do.

 

[Shadowslayer]

You mean something like the following from the entry page for the review section here:

"Although EN World has staff reviewers (click here for their contact details), the majority of the reviews here are written by fans and visitors to EN World. Anybody is welcome to write a review, although there are some basic rules and guidelines which I ask you to follow (see the help section)."

Actually if you follow a review link from the main page you don't see that...and I'd be willing to bet that most of the casual guys here get to the reviews by those links.

Look, I'm not trying to get anybody's goat here. Crothian, I'm sorry I came off as snotty. (but don't hang it all on me either) When I said "whoever you are" I was illustrating that I don't know you other than as "Crothian from the message boards" Maybe in ENworld land that carries some weight among the regulars...but last time I checked, this wasn't a private club. Is it wrong to feel that a review written by someone with a title, like Staff Reviewer, should show the credentials, or lack thereof, of the reviewer, in order to help the reader decide how seriously to take it? This site IS supposed to be the best of the best, correct?

Anyway, Joe Kushner illustrated my point exactly in this "don't sweat that Shadowslayer guy, he's not really one of US" post.

He just seems like a very casual user. Relatively low post count (you and I both have more reviews than he has posts), but an old registration date (unless that's mistaken), leads me to believe that he's not too familiar with EN World, or if he didn't know how to enter a review into RPG.net, role playing game sites in general.

In fact I believe that gives me a good perspective to comment on the nature of reviews. In fact I AM just a casual ENworlder. I'm usually on here once a day, but don't get too involved. I'm an involved gamer. I've been gaming a long time, and I game a lot. But I also work for a living and don't have a lot of bread to buy books, and neither does my group. We make do pretty nicely with just PHBs, the SRD, and the odd "treat yourself" book buy.

So yes, I read the reviews, becuase if its anything other than a WOTC book, I have to order it. By the time I've decided my money's wasted, I've already bought and paid for it. I don't have the option of browsing before I buy. (And I don't get time off work to go to cons and poke around either)

And, I'd hazard a guess that there's a helluva lot more gamers my boat than in yours.

So your guy's words carry a lot of weight. Does it make me a bastard to want to know the credentials of the reviewer? I don't care if you got the copies free. I don't care if you were paid or not. I just want to know who the reviewer is. In fact I believe that a review that wants to be taken seriously by a cautious buyer would include it automatically.

Or are the reviews only for those that are already in the club?

 

[Crothian]

you favor the newer edition and i know you own much of the previous ones.. (Jester..aka James came to my house too)

I'd love to have the time to break out a review of some of the first edition books and regular D&D modules I have. I don't get to play the old edtions, but I do in away since I convert lots of my old modules. It my mind its the best of both world as most of the people I know don't want to play the old editions.

 

[Crothian]

but last time I checked, this wasn't a private club. Is it wrong to feel that a review written by someone with a title, like Staff Reviewer, should show the credentials, or lack thereof, of the reviewer, in order to help the reader decide how seriously to take it? This site IS supposed to be the best of the best, correct?

If you want to know if you can take a reviewer seriously, read their reviews. Start a thread asking about the reviewer. Does gamign for 25 years make me better a reviewer then someone that gamed for 5? I doin't think so. For somepeople the fact that I own and play a variety of systems makes me better to review things but to others it doesn't. Listing credentials is not a bad idea, but in the end there is not a heck of a lot that is there that will let people know who is a good reviewer or not. Or perhaps what people think makes a good reviewer is differrnt then me. What I need to know about a reviewer I pick up in reading thier reviews. I don't see what in a reviewers bio that would lend credibility to their reviews unless they have worked in the industry. But then people that work in the industry that do reviews get the label of bias lots of times. For the record I've never had anything published.

So, what credentials would make a good reviewer? And that question is for everyone.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

You'd think so, but I have seen some curious exceptions to this.

I'm sure. In fact, let me moderate my original statement: There is the perception among many (but not all) people that publishers give materials to those who give them the most favorable reviews.

Obviously, there are plenty of folks getting review material who give mixed reviews, and people keep foolishly putting monster stats in front of John Cooper.

More important than the reality is the perception. And the best way to dismiss the perception is to make it clear the reviewer doesn't have anything to hide by anyone's measure, but just saying whether or not the review is of free or purchased material.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

But I think that there might be a misperception with people that think that. Because frankly in my case it's just wrong. But I see the point. I'll have to think on that.

Let me tell you how this works for me, offline. In my regular life, I'm a newspaper reporter. And among the things I cover are local politics. During the last political season, every time I'd cover a fund-raiser, people wanted to give me a plate of whatever they were eating. I turned it down, not because a plate full of tacos can sway my opinion, but because people are already inclined to read bias into journalism in this day and age, and if they find out that I got a cut of prime rib from one of the local politicians, those inclined to believe I was biased in favor of him will suddenly go "AH HA!"

As a result, I eat nothing, even when I have to race to a fast food restaurant after leaving a location with mouth-watering food.

Is it necessary? No. Honestly, if I could be bought, my price would be a lot higher than that. But it makes the people in my small community feel better since I am notorious for turning down gifts.

Now, in the review game, it's obviously impractical to buy everything oneself. But to prevent the (usually irrational, sometimes not) suspicion from falling on them, I think every reviewer should, as a matter of course, just say whether or not they got a review copy for free.

The good reviewers suffer a perception problem created by the bad reviewers. The way to combat that is with more openess, and more honesty than the bad reviewers can afford.

 

[Crothian]

The good reviewers suffer a perception problem created by the bad reviewers.

In more ways then you know. :\

I get it and I used to do it. But I got tired of doing it because it reads bad and it's bland and when I stopped no one cared. This is a the first time in three years that anyone has even brought it up that I've seen.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Listing credentials is not a bad idea, but in the end there is not a heck of a lot that is there that will let people know who is a good reviewer or not...snip...So, what credentials would make a good reviewer? And that question is for everyone.

Actually, the one I would like to know is what's the difference between a staff reviewer and Joe blow gamer? I mean, you have a title...so does it actually mean anything? Or is it just a matter of who your mates are?

And in this case I'm not being snotty, I just really want to know.