A reviewer that gets a stamp of approval from a respected entity, such as becoming a staff or affiliate reviewer here or becoming a print reviewer for Dragon magazine also makes me more confident in their opinion. This process of editorial review of internet reviewers is new; many websites still seem to let just anyone post reviews and that decreases the value of those reviews (at least to me). I still look at those reviews but I don't treat them any differently than what someone might post to a message board; unless they've got a strong track record *and* I know about that record.
There are a few good fan reviewers we have here. Plus, since many of us post on these message boards as well as review, you get a greater feel for them, more so then just through their reviews.
So here is what I think: if there are only 3-4 atrocious ranks, there should only be 3-4 amazing ranks. that would surely make them stick out of the crowd much more. As it is, the rankings for publishers are absolutely clogged between 3 and 4.5 while the low numbers are virtually untouched. Spread it out a bit.
Heh. Just yesterday, I was rebutting with the words, "EnWorld rating inflation" on another message board.
Myself, I rate product versus all other products I've experienced (and I've rifled through 20 years of it!), not just the products I've reviewed (as an average rating of 3 on a review site would imply). Likewise (we yammered this on RPGnet before), a "volunteer" reviewer (ie. reviewing product he purchased and didn't receive comp), would, more likely than not, only bother to review products they feel are good but not noticed, (although some would also slam overly hyped stuff as well). As for the staff reviewer who's reviewed a hundred or so comparable products, I **would** expect an average review of, well, average. I'm wrong, of course, since even the solicitation of product introduces a preference for good product. (Heck, that's what **I** do.)
