Reviews III (split)

[HinterWelt]

Reviews can be bad. I have heard the "No such thing as a bad review, its all exposure" schools but I am in favor of informative reviews. By this I mean, a review that tells the consumer something about the game, for example:
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9808.phtml

as opposed to a rather bland opinion based review that does not say much:
http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Reviews&file=index&req=showcontent&id=1042

Both are reviesws of the same book but the gaming report on tells little of the book and focuses on previous impressions of the reviewer.

So, what can you do? Research your reviewers. Find out what type of review they are likely to give and communicate your expectation in a non-demanding and polite manner. I prefer the style of review that breaks out the elements and tells the reader something about the game. Of course opinion is a part of the review, that cannot be avoided. Still, the reviewer should present some facts not just opinions (again, in my opinion). Do your homework and get a review that ius informative.

Just my experiences,
Bill

[Ron Edwards]

Bill! You are posting to a three-year-old thread! Don't do that, please.

The above was split from Getting out the reviews. It is the second such instance in a couple of days, for no apparent reason.

Discussion of Bill's point is welcome here.

Best,
Ron

[daMoose_Neo]

If I might interject, thought it may be off topic, I'm betting he did the same thing I did- one of the other posts here in Publishing referenced a slightly older post where you listed (as always) other, excellent, thread resources. One such thread (the one we keep replying to) ended on the note of discussing quality of reviews etc etc
The thread also ended on July 2nd, of 2001. Checking the date but skipping the year results in a little voice saying "Oh, its not that old!"
I'm not sure if its been brought up, but is there a way to lock a thread from replies if they are past a certain age? Would still allow the handy referencing w/o unintentionally ressurecting ancient threads.

To make this post actually worth something:

Depends on the opinion of the reviewer sometimes~ In my reply I had mentioned that people buy somethings simply on anothers say-so. While it can work against you if the popular guy pans the product royally, it can also boost it with his/her praise.
Also depends on the presentation of the opinion review. A 100% Opinionated review can still be (if slightly) informative-

"I love the movie! It was great! I loved the characters, the depth and originality of their personality, it just grabbed me and never let me go!"
vs.
"It was a cool movie. The actors were great, I had to go to the bathroom but didn't want to."

Say the two statements were of the same movie. Both are, for the most part, pure opinion.
Reading the first one, you could assume it was probably a drama/comedy or something highly character oriented. Could be an action, but the focus of this person was the characters, so one can assume that was the focus of the movie.
The other is fairly generic. Were  they good stuntmen? Where they good comedians? Were they expressive and emotive? Too vauge, foggy. You don't know what it was or what it did.

Opinion isn't always bad, just usually as no one really knows how to share theirs~

[HinterWelt]

Bill! You are posting to a three-year-old thread! Don't do that, please.

The above was split from Getting out the reviews. It is the second such instance in a couple of days, for no apparent reason.

Discussion of Bill's point is welcome here.

Best,
Ron

Sorry Ron, I just saw it on the unread and did not even notice the dates. I will pay more attention in the furture.

Bill

[Bob McNamee]

It would be great if the site's software could automatically split threads that are over a couple months since last post.

It would save a lot of manual work by Ron.

[Ron Edwards]

Now this thread is totally fucked.

1. Bill, please see my comments about apologies in Site Discussion (recent thread).

2. When you're responsible for looking at the dates, it means the whole date. Not negotiable.

3. And no, old threads are not going to be locked. That's been discussed in great deal in Site Discussion too.

On topic, people. That means stay on topic. If you want to comment about a comment about a moderation of a post, don't do it in that thread.

This one's closed. It's suddenly become a moderator's nightmare and all the topics belong in Site Discussion.

Best,
Ron