Sound Off on Sputnik

[mx]

I know that I'm getting ridiculous with all these posts, but I've been thinking a lot about site direction lately.

1) What do you like about Sputnik?
2) What do you dislike about Sputnik?

Please let me know, particularly the latter question

[Kyle]

I like
- Lots of great users whos oppinions I can trust
- At the highest level, the review standard can be very good
- Great place for me to write amateur reviews and try out ideas without worrying too much about how it is recieved.

I dislike
- How the site is dominated by metal. I know it's not something that can be altered or even people want altered, but it's just annoying for me because it's not my thing.
- Generally useless taste of a loads of users. Again, this is really me being a music snob again, but site polls and charts that get dominated by music that i'm really not interested in kind of puts me off. Also, when we have features like lists that are filled with people talking about how much they love Jimmy Page, it seems to bring down the validity of the site in my oppinion.
- Some of the humour on the site is very private and unwelcoming to new users.

[JohnnySixGuns]

I like reviewing (JXD here. I was caught in the crossfire of a mass banning. Don't ask...) and the opportunity it gives me to be involved with music somehow without actually having to be an active musician, etc...

I like the direction the site has moved in the last couple of months, I like the Staff system, and I like the community as well. Being on Staff gives me an opportunity to be even more involved as I really don't do a lot of posting in the forums or on the site, so reviewing along with certain staff duties (flexible as they are) affords me a nice hobby.

What I don't like? The moronic comments, people putting down other reviewers, the flaming at the reviews site, etc.

On a more practical level I don't care for the page design much. Or the colors or skins. Nothing wrong with them and I know you do your best with what you have and work very hard on it. And I actually find it favorable to what Rolling Stone has and other music sites. But a bit more polish and refinement would be welcome. Although I know nothing of this and I'm sure you are limited by the software you use and what not. You can tell its a message board, I guess is what I'm saying. It just has a nice suit of clothes on.

Something like pitchfork would be nice. And I hate to bring them up because they seem a thorn in your side sometimes. But yeah....

Also I'm a about to steal some of their news :evil:


EDIT: So all in all I like the site, is what I'm saying. Very little complaints....

[Channing]

I don't like lists. I know they're a high traffic part of the site or whatever.

But they're ****ing retarded.

[TojesDolan]

What I like about Sputnik...


I can write reviews and what not.
I can group all the bands I like slowly and what not.
Many very cute features I don't use because I don't really own that many albums, like lists. But it's very cute.



What I don't like about Sputnik...

I can't write my opinion on music in all the other aspects of my life in which it has some kind of roll, therefore my opinion on life feels void.
Some very nitpick-ish elements of the design that I have pointed out several times and are just gay little code things that are fixable but certainly are time-consuming and very little people notice it (I know about that I program in C++ and sh¡t)
People are not allowed to say what's a classic to them and what not because of the vets and regs telling users what they should like, and how they should like it.
Vets and regs usually go "no need for another review lel" nonetheless different opinions = better buying experience.

[Eliminator]

like - everything
dislike - eliminator

[The Jungler]

I like
- Lots of great users whos oppinions I can trust
- At the highest level, the review standard can be very good
- Great place for me to write amateur reviews and try out ideas without worrying too much about how it is recieved.

I dislike
- How the site is dominated by metal. I know it's not something that can be altered or even people want altered, but it's just annoying for me because it's not my thing.
- Generally useless taste of a loads of users. Again, this is really me being a music snob again, but site polls and charts that get dominated by music that i'm really not interested in kind of puts me off. Also, when we have features like lists that are filled with people talking about how much they love Jimmy Page, it seems to bring down the validity of the site in my oppinion.
- Some of the humour on the site is very private and unwelcoming to new users.This is my opinion almost exactly.

[TojesDolan]

Actually now that I think about it, the graphic section of the site do needs major improving. I'm sorry to be such a bitch about this, and even though I know that the site is overall friendly, it's the little stupid things that you think "o look it's cute" or something of that order.

._.

[Stoic]

What I like:

The fact that users can interact with the site in many ways.
The quality of the reviews, comments and discussions.
The coverage of non mainstream bands/genres as well.
The hierarchy and the recognition an active user could get.

What I don't like

The band pages.
The inadequate coverage of some genres.
The current listing of genres (e.g. where's heavy metal, or goth rock etc)
The lack of an introductive guide for each genre.
Most of the forum regulars don't bother with sputnikmusic.
There aren't any alternative page skins.

Metal domination
What do you think can be done about it?

[Eliminator]

our band pages blow

[Channing]

What do you think can be done about it?
kill metallica

[Eliminator]

man8

[Channing]

lol

[The Jungler]

We definitely need to work on adding more albums/reviews of albums, especially the ones that don't get much attention. Its kind of embarrassing to know that there are 15 odd American Idiot reviews, but classic artists with extensive catalouges have a mere one or two albums added, let alone reviewed.

I think it would help if you could make it so you can add album art with just a URL.

[mx]

Actually now that I think about it, the graphic section of the site do needs major improving. I'm sorry to be such a bitch about this, and even though I know that the site is overall friendly, it's the little stupid things that you think "o look it's cute" or something of that order.

People nitpick the design no matter what you do. There is no such thing as a design that pleases everyone =)

[Iluvatar]

Just make it look like the myspace home/profile page. Everyone loves myspace!

[Eliminator]

no make it look like xanga i love you xanga

[Liberi Fatali]

I will define my likes and dislikes at a later date.

[metallicaman8]

I dislike things like Eliminator's post up there. I really don't take any offence to it, but some people may, and behaviour such as that surely doesn't attract new users. So, pretty much I'd like to see E-bullying cracked down on, unless it's just innocent stuff between users who are friendly with eachother.

Also, fix up the band pages and do that profile enhancing stuff you were talking about. Everything else is cool:)

[Eliminator]

i dunno there seems to be an influx of retards every month or so and then they all go away because they can't handle the internet because we're all really mean to them

[metallicaman8]

i dunno there seems to be an influx of retards every month or so and then they all go away because they can't handle the internet because we're all really mean to them

That's pretty much my point. It's damn tempting to flame these people, and yes, I'm guilty of being a jackass towards them on occasion as well. However, I think rather than insulting them to the point that they leave the site, we should dimply tell them that they're making arses of themselves and to smarten up (in the friendliest way possible). These people may seem like retards, but they haven't yet had the chance to e-mature. When I first arrived on this site I was worse than the majority of n00bs we get comin' through here and look at me now... I'm still not well liked, but I'm doing much better than I was way back when. So, to sum that up: n00bs need time to mature and get a feel for the site before they're mocked the extent that they want to leave.

[Eliminator]

uh what

[Channing]

they shouldn't be such idiots when they first come

[Eliminator]

yo mm8 i think custis channing freeman is calling you dumb

[TojesDolan]

People nitpick the design no matter what you do. There is no such thing as a design that pleases everyone =)
I see. There are some issues that could be improved though.

>_> jkjk

[Jom]

I was the asshole mod who banned people for being asshats the most

spam cans lol

like that would have EVER worked (especially now)

[metallicaman8]

True enough, but a lot of people who come to this site (generally the younger ones) aren't used to functioning the way we do. Most are just used to MSN talk and other things of that nature and think nothing of grammar, mindless insults and excessive swearing. They need time to adapt.

I'll give you this example:

If you put a frog in boiling water, it'll die. However, if you put a frog in lukewarm water and gradually raise the temperature until the water boils it will live.

EDIT: wtf like 3 people got in my way.

[Iluvatar]

What I like about the site:
Me
What I dislike about the site:
No spam cans

edit: The post above me is...ridiculous?

edit2: http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoview11-18-02.htm

Research your stupid frogs on wikipedia at least before you try and use that absurd analogy.

[Channing]

i'd rather let the frog die

the fact is, if they want to stay, they're probably going to stay no matter what someone says to them. we've all been flamed before.

[Eliminator]

ok so how about we have a course where eliminator teaches all the kids how to survive in real life and ill be like hey kids crack is wrong unless theres poop coming out of it then its okay just clean your utensils

[Jom]

By the way I can give my likes and dislikes if need be but I'm fairly certain that my opinions are fairly rigid and don't really change all that much each time a thread like this pops up, but for the sake of the topic I'll address them later.

[metallicaman8]

i'd rather let the frog die

the fact is, if they want to stay, they're probably going to stay no matter what someone says to them. we've all been flamed before.

True enough, if someone wants to stay, they will. But, their desire to stay could be based on how they're treated.

[lunchforthesky]

I like most elements of the site, I guess the aesthetics could be improved but I've no real suggestions as to how.

I think what we need to expand Sputnik is fairly simple really, we need more reviews. Of course we have a lot as it is but as the Jungler said too often it is of American Idiot/Nevermind and not of something other people haven't already reviewed.

The answer to this I think is to expand the staff/regularly contributing reviewers. The staff do a good job but you can't expect ten people to review everything within the music spectrum. I think that for each major genre on the site (Indie, Metal, Pop Punk, Punk, Hardcore, Pop, Hip Hop) we should have designated reviewers trying to cover as much as they can within their field. Obviously it would be acceptable to review outside of genre but this is just a suggestion. The site is effectively run by about twenty people most of whom post in this sub forum, we need to bring more people into this group and get them involved in the whole Sputnik setting thus encouraging them to review more frequently.

Each genre has at least three or four good reviewers but many of these dont review with enough regularity and instead were inundated with weaker reviews. We need far, far more quality reviews especially on many bands back catalogues but this cant happen until we get good reviewers reviewing more often. So basically Jeremy, Spat Out Path and everyone else who posts here needs to suggest the best reviewers from each genre and encourage them to review more frequently and with some cohesion (i.e. Three members of staff/approved dont need to review one album when they have similar opinions) their time would be better spent reviewing different things.

There are quite a few decent reviewers not currently in the loop as it were on Sputnik and they are the people we need to get the site to grow and have more proffessional reviews throughout Sputnik.

[Eliminator]

eliminator should review more.

badda bing, badda boom.

[lunchforthesky]

this too ^^

[JumpTheF**kUp]

The answer to this I think is to expand the staff/regularly contributing reviewers.

tbh, I think that people should just take the initiative and if they see an album that hasn't been reviewed yet, then do it. I doubt adding people to staff will make people want to review more. It might make their reviewing time happier, as they'll probably get more feedback and stuff, but they won't review more.

[tom79]

I like the site for the same reason a lot of other people do. But as said it needs more reviews of albums that don't have any. And the bugs so you can actually search a band with commas ect need to be fixed. And is there a way all the '?s' can get removed from older reviews?

[lunchforthesky]

For us maybe but theres quite a few decent reviewers not currently approved/staff who aren't included in the Sputnik Community we have going on but I think they would review more if they were.

[Neoteric]

I was the asshole mod who banned people for being asshats the most

spam cans lol

like that would have EVER worked (especially now)I remember you banned BTBP cause he told you to go die in a fire lol

[Eliminator]

i'll hack your system32 files!!!!

[Jom]

I remember you banned BTBP cause he told you to go die in a fire lol

Yeah I don't miss him or ::Entwistle:: at all.
They couldn't take the heat so they got out of my kitchen.

And is there a way all the '?s' can get removed from older reviews?

Hi I've wanted to be in charge of this for months now but everybody who can put me in power to do this either ignores me or . . . yep, that's it.

[Iluvatar]

Hi I've wanted to be in charge of this for months now but everybody who can put me in power to do this either ignores me or . . . yep, that's it.
You'd effectively have the power to edit/theoretically delete 60-70% of sputniks reviews. Even med couldn't hold that much power.

Or Hep Kat.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Med could hold any amount of power. Pfft.

[Jom]

I wouldn't be deleting them, just editing them.

Further, Firefox's spell check feature would help isolate the symbols. I'm just not going to write/edit/grammar check/spell check their reviews unless Big Red asks me to.

[Eliminator]

entwistle disappeared because of you?

[Iluvatar]

Yeah, but the whole point is you'd have the capability to do that, which is a bit too much power to hold regardless. Unless there is someway to make it where you can only delete "?"'s and replace them with "'"'s or """'s.

Btw I also don't think mods should be able to edit reviews but whatever.

[Jom]

entwistle disappeared because of you?

I didn't write that.

Btw I also don't think mods should be able to edit reviews but whatever.

Why not? There was this user once upon a time who insisted on making all of his reviews one giant block of text, so I'd space them out because all of his comments were complaints about how it was a giant paragraph.

[Channing]

I don't have a problem with mods being able to edit reviews. I don't think any of them are going to abuse that power, so it's fine.

[Eliminator]

jom killed entwistle

contact the feds.

[Iluvatar]

Give and take. Yeah you can do that, but if a mod gets super pissy he can go around and delete loads of reviews. I'm sure they're all backed up at this point but it would still not be a good thing at all.

I don't really care about the subject that much though. Back to talking about sputnik and why its awesome!

[Eliminator]

lists! :)

[Channing]

ipod shuffle lists, specifically

[Eliminator]

they are the cats meow.

:)

[The Door Mouse]

Sorry if I'm a little late in the disscussion

Likes
Wide Span of Artists
Some People
Best reviews out of all the other review sites that I've seen

Dislikes
Some People
Dumb lists, journals and soundoffs
Too much flaming on noobs

[Channing]

ok mx take care of "some people" first

[Iluvatar]

Too much flaming on noobs
Can I just state that it isnt noobs who are flamed, its a group of maybe 5 users who have regularly shown how stupid they are. Sure a new member may get some flak, but it isnt as bad as its made out to be.

I also really like the concept of lists. The whole expanding lists so that good ones are rewarded I think is a fantastic idea.

[The Jungler]

I think bad lists will start to disapear once list rating comes into play. Other than that, I find them to be a good feature.

[Liberi Fatali]

What I like:
- Being able to review
- Zebra
- The staff picks idea and page
- The recent ratings box
- The fact that the mods seem to have good taste in picking featured album reviews
- The gradually improving news section

What I dislike:
- Poor search function
- Small span of artists in some genres in the database
- Feeling like anything I review that is unfamiliar to most will be completely ignored
- Users who put themselves up on a pedestrial above the other users
- The community thread, not the premise itself, the nature of the discussion within it to a large extent
- Feeling pressured to review often
- Listening parties, they feel kind of pointless to me. Someone said a few days ago they need blurbs with them, and I really think I agree with that

[Dave de Sylvia]

I used to write blurbs, but nobody cared. Also nobody offered to help by writing one. Actually I'd say more people complain (not to say you are) about listening parties than actually make an effort to improve them.

[Liberi Fatali]

I think you're right in saying that.

[Jom]

Agreed. I've tried finding decent labels that offer free streams where the source is obvious to find, but outside of Century Media and Roadrunner, I have a tough time. While it'd be nice to not have a power-death-progressive-black metal band every week, it sucks whenever there's an aforementioned band posted. People bitch all the time about the bands chosen, but nobody makes an effort to FIND links and add them to bands on the site. It's easy to complain, but God forbid that people have to put in a little bit of work to fix something like listening parties.

Anyway it's nearly 4AM and I'm babbling.

[Neoteric]

tbh not many record labels give free MP3's of bands

at least in my experience

oh yeah

Likes:
- Getting into new music through well-written reviews (inspired to check the artist out).
- Writing reviews heh
- Some music lists
- Reading news and finding out things I wouldn't have

Dislikes:
- Crappy 5 item lists ugh ugh ugh
- Journals
- That staff reviews are separated from other reviews (yeah I understand that the staff reviews need to be emphasized on the front page but I liked my reviews being with the others).

That's all really.

[Sepstrup]

Like:
- The fact that we can have multiple reviews and varying opinions on each album. A site like allmusic.com will tell you how influential and album is, and how good it's universally accepted to be, but it doesn't tell you a personal opinion in the same way Sputnik does.

- The staff section, which I think should be fleshed out a lot.

Dislike:
- Half-assed lists
- People telling others that a review isn't needed because there are already several for that particular album
- The amount of metal on the site because I hate most metal. For some reason, rateyourmusic seems to have much better music on their top albums of ____ than we do.
- That there isn't more discussion going on in the listening parties.

[Neoteric]

Agreed with Sepstrup.

[Stoic]

Once again, concerning your "too much metal" statement, what do you think can be done about it?

[Iluvatar]

People actually using sputnik for what it was intended and expanding their musical tastes beyond what they were when they joined?

[lunchforthesky]

All we can really do is improve the site and wait for the people to come so i guess more reviews of non-metal albums.

[IsItLuck?]

Like:
-The design of sputnik (the logo and such, the colors mesh perfectly)
-Sound-offs
-Listening parties (make the listening parties scroll or something? because on the front page there is only one listening party unless you click the specific genre)
-Music News
-Lists (to a creative extent)

Dislike
-"recent album ratings"
-10+ reviews of the same album with the same rating. (can't do anything about that..)
-The fact that people can negative vote you without having to give any feedback whatsoever.


Wants
-Concert section (Concert section can include setlists and a rating of how the band performed that night. It is good insight to hear if a band is good live or not and what to expect for future dates on the tour)
-sound-offs should leave the name of the user who left the bump, there is nothing better than knowing who appreciates your work.

[lunchforthesky]

A concert section is a good idea i think and will introduce people into the reviewing fold.

[IsItLuck?]

Oh and I dislike some of the users who are constantly picking fights basically and completely rude to other users. It's the same people all of the time. The newest addition to that crew is "geography"

"Probably because you have bad taste."

"Chiodos?



More like.



Choads."

[Iluvatar]

If only he were a new addition -_-.

[IsItLuck?]

hahahha ^^


oh and I like the pie charts, except most users do not need more than 1 genre slice, since theirs usually consist of all metal :x

[Channing]

-"recent album ratings"
recent album ratings are good so we can see if someone is going around handing out 1 ratings like candy. then they get banned and i'm happy ^__^

[lunchforthesky]

I hate how i spend time doing reviews of lesser known bands to help the site expand its database yet i receive little to no feedback where as a track by track of Chiodos gets trolled to hell and back.

[Cocaine]

I hate how i spend time doing reviews of lesser known bands to help the site expand its database yet i receive little to no feedback where as a track by track of Chiodos gets trolled to hell and back.

get used to it.

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?p=10214

never got a single comment.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Well there's nothing we can do about that. By definition, a lesser known band isn't gonna attract an awful lot of interest, but we can reprimand people who troll reviews.

[Cocaine]

All I'm saying is get used to it. Usually, someone will eventually read it.

[lunchforthesky]

Ive never had a review with no comments yet, but it does kind of suck but as you say its the way the site works.

[Sepstrup]

Once again, concerning your "too much metal" statement, what do you think can be done about it?

Ban them all and put a censorship on all things metal :smash:

[Liberi Fatali]

Once again, concerning your "too much metal" statement, what do you think can be done about it?
You metal fans need to fix up, look sharp.

Yeszir.

[IsItLuck?]

It's funny though, how most people who like metal (favorite bands are all some sort of sub genre of metal) are very stubborn about listening to other genres.

[mx]

I don't think there's "too much" metal, I just think there is not enough of the other genres. The metal community here is probably the most vibrant and active, and should be a model for the others... the fact is, some of the other communites kinda suck, given that we don't have enough users. Rather than reducing metal, we should try to increase the participation in these sections.

[JohnnySixGuns]

I used to write blurbs, but nobody cared. Also nobody offered to help by writing one. Actually I'd say more people complain (not to say you are) about listening parties than actually make an effort to improve them.
i like listening parties but don't know how to set one up. last time i tried instant phayle.

what i don't understand is the kind of link that is required to make it work. can someone help a brother out with a step by step?

[TojesDolan]

I am reviewing a lot of indie and alternative musics. :)

[Jim]

Me likes

- It's more communal than other review sites, with the users themselves providing the material.
- It's set up relatively easy, and is pretty simple for me to navigate.

Me dislikes

- Established user pomposity
- Not a lot of new users reviewing (or being encouraged to review)
- Little international content (the site is mostly American and Canadian driven)
- Lists
- Skin (black and grey is bland. Slimming, but bland)
- No required justification for neg votes.
- Not much staff contribution other than reviews.

[Liberi Fatali]

While we have you here mx, can you please put years into the dates of album reviews in peoples profiles. Seeing that a review was submitted on 12-02 doesn't give me much insight into how old the review is seeing as sputnik has been up for 2 years now or so.

[Jim]

Ooh, yes. That's a minor thing I think whenever I open my profile but forget as soon as I leave.

[JohnnySixGuns]

I am reviewing a lot of indie and alternative musics. :)
musics yes. musics is good :D

[Oddsen]

- Skin (black and grey is bland. Slimming, but bland)
- No required justification for neg votes.

I definetly agree that the skin should be a different color. The site just looks kinda dead with black and grey

[FlawedPerfection]

Sorry I'm late and I'm sure that everything's been said by now. But I'll do this anyway.

What I Like:
- The ability to review and try new things without any real obligations, even if I am staff. This is the perfect place for me to refine my writing skills. As long as I can continue to do that, I will stay on this site no matter what happens.
- The ability to find all kinds of new music and introduce new music to others
- The recognition one can recieve for writing good reviews

What I Dislike:
- The lack of reviews on classic albums
- The multiple bugs in the jazz section on the site- such as jazz reviews not showing up on the Other page.
- The gap between forums and Sputnik

[JohnnySixGuns]

what are these "classic" albums i keep hearing people say need reviewing?

[Jom]

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=365138 +
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=510152 I think

[JohnnySixGuns]

good morning, Jom

i can't get anything straight around here. we got one camp saying "new reviews are priority one" and another camp saying "we need more classics reviewed" and our fearless leader expecting more traffic at the site reviewing a bunch of Indie stuff no one listens to. sorry, but its true. only a handful of 'peeps listen to Grizzly Bear, wtf? and that December band, too. or whatever they are called?

i give up, i tell 'ya :smash:


/goes back to Orbison review...

[lunchforthesky]

I listen to Grizzly Bear :confused:

and The Decemberists.

[JohnnySixGuns]

ok thats 1 :)


/puts on the Decemberists for the first time

[lunchforthesky]

I rather review bands I like or at least genres I like than cater to people who only listen to metal just because it's popular here.

[Jom]

I'm beginning to think that this is either an interface problem or a lack of focus.

I think he's still trying to figure out where he wants to take the site. We have a load of regular writers and contributors, so it's reasonable to believe that some will review new releases while others will flesh out the database while others still will review the classic albums. My inclination is that people should continue to do whatever it is they're doing and not worry too much about the schematics.

[The Jungler]

ok thats 1 :)


/puts on the Decemberists for the first timeMake that 2.

I'm with Lunch though, people should review what they want, even if few people know about them. And besides, The Decemberists are really popular.

[JohnnySixGuns]

I rather review bands I like or at least genres I like than cater to people who only listen to metal just because it's popular here.
meh we have enough metal reviews/reviewers. i just wonder how to get more traffic to the site like everyone else wonders. do we do it by narrowing our focus and bringing in a certain demographic? broadening our library of reviews by reviewing more classics or perhaps reviewing more mainstream stuff? promotion i think is a good idea. many people here are in college and could maybe do some sort of at school promoting. stickers, school newspapers, free publications, etc...

can we be a pitchfork, whom i see people cite as "the word" all over the internets? i don't know?

i'm listening to these December people. first song was pretty good, i'm not caring for this second one much...intersting imagery, though...
I'm with Lunch though, people should review what they want, even if few people know about them. And besides, The Decemberists are really popular.
i think the same and will be returning to reviewing my old crap henceforth :)

[lunchforthesky]

Really good too :)

[JohnnySixGuns]

Really good too :)
ok pistols and sabers and what not. a little jig and shi.t. wtf is this guy going on about :confused:


EDIT: now it sounds like STYX! :smash:

[Iluvatar]

Nice keeping it on topic.

[JohnnySixGuns]

thanks for straightening me out

[Sepstrup]

Obviously both classic albums and new releases should be a priority for a credible reviews site, but I'm with Jom in thinking people should just review what they want. I think it'll balance itself out fine. I mean, a lot of people want to read about that new Fall Out Boy album and eureka! a lot of people review it.

So yeah, let people review what they feel like and once in a while offer e-cookies for reviewing new releases and make review-random-classic-album games.

[Jom]

I have been adding Wikipedia links like crazy, even for bands/albums I don't even like.

It's too bad there aren't any sites that are willing to link exchange with us, but what can you do?

[lunchforthesky]

Ive added all my recent reviews into wikipedia so i guess if we can get people doing that it might increase traffic a little.

[Mikesn]

We have a load of regular writers and contributors, so it's reasonable to believe that some will review new releases
I've decided to focus on this. I'll also try to tackle some younger, lesser known bands when I can. It'll be mostly metal though, srry.

[JohnnySixGuns]

a metal review from Mikesn? no wai!

i'm going back to reviewing my old crap. Los Lobos and Pete Townshend ftw...throw in some Who, Tom Petty, a little Bee Gee's. why site traffic will be up in no time. :)

[Mikesn]

Don't worry, the shock will wear off soon enough.

[south_of_heaven 11]

I pretty much dig everything. If I had to see one thing go, I might have to say lists.

[Cocaine]

lists are poorly integrated here. i hate to say it, but that's one thing RYM does right. here it's just like "lol im listening to these now lol".

and yeah, ill be reviewing new releases as they come out now too. i have two done for upcoming albums actually.

[Jim]

I'm focusing on Australian content. The site needs more international focus. Wouldn't it be interesting to not only have the site split into different genres, but different nationalities/continents?

Pie in the sky I know, but food for thought...

[AlienEater]

I don't see why it should be split according to nationality to be honest. It seems kinda pointless to me.

[Angmar]

as long as thier included, although i dont think dividing is right...

[Iluvatar]

Looking for music solely based on what country it came from is a whole new level of stupid in my eyes.

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

-Get rid of lists.
-Either get rid of journals or make them more prominent again, they're thoroughly useless as they are.
-Work on making the site more community driven. This whole sputnik hierarchy thing is stupid.

[Kage]

I'm focusing on Australian content. The site needs more international focus. Wouldn't it be interesting to not only have the site split into different genres, but different nationalities/continents?

Pie in the sky I know, but food for thought...

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.


-Work on making the site more community driven. This whole sputnik hierarchy thing is stupid.
I agree.

[AlienEater]

Bring back muses

[JohnXDoe]

their is no hierarchy system at sputnik. unless you mean a bit more organization represents a "hierarchy". how much more community driven can we be? we are pretty much 100% community driven as it is. from the Admin to the Staff to the Mods and all the contributors, we are all part of the community.

[Iluvatar]

I think he meant certain users are treated more highly than others.

Heil!

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

their is no hierarchy system at sputnik.

Um... yeah there is. Users are practically bunched in with other users of their "ranking" from the get-go. Then they have to endure a bunch of bullshit to prove their worth and then they sort of level up. The users of sputnik travel in packs, I'm afraid.

By 'community driven', I kind of meant the entire site feels like they play a part in how the site runs. Not everyone gets to contribute but those without a high profile get ignored or made fun of.

[Iluvatar]

A community will naturally break off into splinter groups. It's natural; it also generates more discussion in the end. When "groups" of users start having whole-body hostility towards each other there will be a problem, but there aren't enough users on sputnik to even think about that.

And every new member to a community has to prove to people he isn't an idiot. You don't automatically say "Oh hey chum, lets get a beer." You say "Oh hey chum, lets get a beer" and then secretly piss in that beer.

[AlienEater]

what bullshit do we have to endure before we level up?

[Iluvatar]

See: Everything stevo2112 goes through.

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

A community will naturally break off into splinter groups. It's natural
Josh is aware of this.

When "groups" of users start having whole-body hostility towards each other there will be a problem, but there aren't enough users on sputnik to even think about that.

There were a few months ago. It was chaos. And while things have settled down since then, it's not like many of those sentiments have changed, if any.

And every new member to a community has to prove to people he isn't an idiot. You don't automatically say "Oh hey chum, lets get a beer." You say "Oh hey chum, lets get a beer" and then secretly piss in that beer.

Not quite what I was saying, Ilu. There are those who have been around for a while who still get the cold shoulder. What I am proposing is that we find some way to unify the elite members such as Spat and newer and less noticed users.

[AlienEater]

See: Everything stevo2112 goes through.

I see.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Why am I getting mentioned?

The trouble some newer members get has nothing to do with the ranking system, it's because certain users enjoy picking on vulnerable types of people, be it because they're younger and less experienced or not quite as skilled at writing.

[Iluvatar]

There were a few months ago. It was chaos. And while things have settled down since then, it's not like many of those sentiments have changed, if any.
Well the thing is it isn't that groups dislike each other. It's just those 4 or 5 person clusters hate everyone else.

Not quite what I was saying, Ilu. There are those who have been around for a while who still get the cold shoulder. What I am proposing is that we find some way to unify the elite members such as Spat and newer and less noticed users.
To be honest, most of the users who "still" get the cold shoulder deserve their position =/. Notice how some users get accepted eventually. No one liked chan at first. steveo seems to be getting more recognition and isn't mindlessly flamed anymore. Just most users who get flamed think "omg jerks they cant have a point to any of this" and continue to be retards.

Case in point, me.

Edit to Bron- Because no one with a join date earlier than october 05 likes me :(

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

Why am I getting mentioned?
A good example of a highly respected user, is all.

The trouble some newer members get has nothing to do with the ranking system, it's because certain users enjoy picking on vulnerable types of people, be it because they're younger and less experienced or not quite as skilled at writing.
More or less the point I am getting at. Although, "rank" apparently plays a part in these ribbings, seeing as how it's usually regular users with some merit who attack the newer ones without any.

Well the thing is it isn't that groups dislike each other. It's just those 4 or 5 person clusters hate everyone else.
Right well that's much better.

Edit- Iluvatar why must you be so hard on yourself?

[JohnXDoe]

Um... yeah there is. Users are practically bunched in with other users of their "ranking" from the get-go. Then they have to endure a bunch of bullshit to prove their worth and then they sort of level up. The users of sputnik travel in packs, I'm afraid.

By 'community driven', I kind of meant the entire site feels like they play a part in how the site runs. Not everyone gets to contribute but those without a high profile get ignored or made fun of.
i suppose i may not hang around enough to notice any of the pack runners or the "ranking" thing. the Staff thing, Approved, etc...I think is a good idea. so far as the entire site feeling like they are involved those are good ideas and i think the site does a good job making everyone feel welcome and able to do there own thing. express themselves, etc....but if the users having a bigger part in "running" the site is what you want somehow (i was once open to this) that is most likely never going to happen. just the politics of the board and the fact that a few users here do a lot more then others so far as day to day operatiions are concerned. we're just reviewers, i'm afraid. the lowly scribe. :(


A community will naturally break off into splinter groups. It's natural; it also generates more discussion in the end. When "groups" of users start having whole-body hostility towards each other there will be a problem, but there aren't enough users on sputnik to even think about that.

And every new member to a community has to prove to people he isn't an idiot. You don't automatically say "Oh hey chum, lets get a beer." You say "Oh hey chum, lets get a beer" and then secretly piss in that beer.
i do see the splinter groups, and it bothers me on a site like this. its silly. you want splinter groups go to the other forums. plenty of them. what bothers me most though is the lack of support sometimes in the community. people who have been here a long time putting down new writers at the reviews site, flaming, harshly judging the contributions of others when we are all in the same boat. a more supportive, involved, and united community might be able to make some dents in having a site that is truly more user oriented. but even some of the sites "leaders" are among the more smug here, so its an uphill battle, to say the least.

really the best thing to do is just stay quiet and contribute what you can without any kind of expectations. thats the way it is across all the forums and the reviews site as well. frustrating sometimes, yes. but at the end of the internet day perhaps not so bad.

[Jom]

I don't understand the discussion. I've read all the posts from this afternoon but honestly what Sylv said is perfectly reasonable:

The trouble some newer members get has nothing to do with the ranking system, it's because certain users enjoy picking on vulnerable types of people, be it because they're younger and less experienced or not quite as skilled at writing.

... particularly the highlighted part.

Let's take Acey, for example. He's not very good w/ teh Englishs. Chan and countless others have told him tips for improving and I have offered to sit down with him via e-mail to flesh out his ideas more, but he continually ignores it. What are supposed to do? If he ignores our help, it's not our fault that his writing hasn't improved.

It doesn't even have anything to do with reviewing, but if your English flat-out sucks or you write everything in a stream-of-consciousness fashion, nobody is going to give a **** about your writing or what you have to say.

Then you look at users like Stoic and Deththrasher whose primarily language ISN'T English and they do a fine job and people read what they have to say, be it in news (Stoic) or 100+ reviews (Deththrasher).

It's a fact that people WILL get picked on and deserve it if they make no effort to improve their writing, be it in posts on the forums or in their reviews. If your grammar is absolutely abysmal or you can't spell well, you're not setting yourself up for success, and that comes down to YOU as a writer, NOT the community - ESPECIALLY when efforts have been made by some of its members to help you.

But if people make a legit, honest effort, then that should be recognized. I can't tell you how many reviewers have e-mailed me for tips and proofreading and have improved significantly. I'm sure others have been in the same boat. But let's face it: if you need help, ASK FOR IT.

There is no shame whatsoever in going up to somebody and say, "Look, I need your help." There are some dicks on the site who will reject you, but most everybody here WILL help you if you ask for it.

But it's on the writer to ask for it. If he or she doesn't, then she can expect to be treated like an outcast. This is not the community's fault.

EDIT: this carries over to the forums, too. If you present an idea but it's absolutely baseless (or it's just not thought out well at all), nobody is going to care about your next suggestion because you're such a loose cannon.

But, if you take your time and present yourself well - this goes back to writing somewhat coherently - then people will acknowledge what you have to say. Whether or not they like what you have to say is another story.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I don't understand the discussion. I've read all the posts from this afternoon but honestly what Sylv said is perfectly reasonable:



... particularly the highlighted part.

Let's take Acey, for example. He's not very good w/ teh Englishs. Chan and countless others have told him tips for improving and I have offered to sit down with him via e-mail to flesh out his ideas more, but he continually ignores it. What are supposed to do? If he ignores our help, it's not our fault that his writing hasn't improved.

It doesn't even have anything to do with reviewing, but if your English flat-out sucks or you write everything in a stream-of-consciousness fashion, nobody is going to give a **** about your writing or what you have to say.

Then you look at users like Stoic and Deththrasher whose primarily language ISN'T English and they do a fine job and people read what they have to say, be it in news (Stoic) or 100+ reviews (Deththrasher).

It's a fact that people WILL get picked on and deserve it if they make no effort to improve their writing, be it in posts on the forums or in their reviews. If your grammar is absolutely abysmal or you can't spell well, you're not setting yourself up for success, and that comes down to YOU as a writer, NOT the community - ESPECIALLY when efforts have been made by some of its members to help you.

But if people make a legit, honest effort, then that should be recognized. I can't tell you how many reviewers have e-mailed me for tips and proofreading and have improved significantly. I'm sure others have been in the same boat. But let's face it: if you need help, ASK FOR IT.

There is no shame whatsoever in going up to somebody and say, "Look, I need your help." There are some dicks on the site who will reject you, but most everybody here WILL help you if you ask for it.

But it's on the writer to ask for it. If he or she doesn't, then she can expect to be treated like an outcast. This is not the community's fault.

EDIT: this carries over to the forums, too. If you present an idea but it's absolutely baseless (or it's just not thought out well at all), nobody is going to care about your next suggestion because you're such a loose cannon.

But, if you take your time and present yourself well - this goes back to writing somewhat coherently - then people will acknowledge what you have to say. Whether or not they like what you have to say is another story.
Was this Review Well Written? Yes | No

[JohnXDoe]

i'm negging that review to high hell :)

[Liberi Fatali]

You people always talk about regulars and vets bashing younger users, but I barely ever see it happening tbqh.

[Eliminator]

yeah really

[Channing]

No one liked chan at first.
:(

All this talk about "sputnik hierarchy" is useless because it's not going to go away. There will always be certain groups and certain users who are liked more than others.

[Eliminator]

but there shouldn't be!

candy and cuddling!!!

[JohnXDoe]

and a cheap feel in the back of my car!

[morrissey]

There is definitely a hierarchy here but it doesn't supersede the community (in my opinion). Hierarchies only suck if you have no way of improving your position. As this site expands basically every regular user here will at least be approved, and a significant portion will be staff writers. Every single person has a chance to move up. The only established users who aren't on staff are guys like elim because they're retards and detrimental to the site which is unfortunate because they're often good to great writers. But the moment they chose to contribute positively outside of reviews I'll vouch for their promotion a hundred times over.

edit: I'm not talking about some kind of clique hierarchy because that is too ****ing retarded to talk about.

[TojesDolan]

You people always talk about regulars and vets bashing younger users, but I barely ever see it happening tbqh.
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?reviewid=4220

Tell me they are not bitching about having seven reviews.

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review_11058

Yes some bashing and what not. But not heavy, jsut mild petting.

[EcentricAgnostic]

I like how easy the site is, in the way anyone with a basic grasp of the internet can participate here. Also the fact tha this site is mainly used driven gives it a nice warm feel. Another thing that's great is how easy the site is to us

But the warm feeling is trashed when some poor new member writes a track by track review thats of a minoritic opinion and then gates flamed, insulted, so much so he leaves, leaving behind a backlog of smap, idocy and much else that could be easily stopped.

Also the site feels quite bland at times, grey isn't the mosdt interesting of colors is it? And much other little niggly things that could easily fixed.

Apart from that, great site :thumb:.

[Kaleid]

Um... yeah there is. Users are practically bunched in with other users of their "ranking" from the get-go. Then they have to endure a bunch of bullshit to prove their worth and then they sort of level up. The users of sputnik travel in packs, I'm afraid.

By 'community driven', I kind of meant the entire site feels like they play a part in how the site runs. Not everyone gets to contribute but those without a high profile get ignored or made fun of.

Bron says it all; this would be my main gripe. In order to increase in status as a more than competent reviews site, Sputnik always needs more members. More members = wider variety of tastes = good thing. Obviously some newcomers don't have a backbone for a little lighthearted banter but I've noticed some users that go a little far when some poor sap/sappette does a fanboy-esque track-by-track and then gets flamed instead of constructive criticism.
But there's lots to like about the site. There's a wide pool of regulars that are very friendly, intelligent and helpful. I disagree with what some have said about the layout; it's clear enough to navigate and not overwhelmingly complicated. The merits of the lists section have always been a mystery to me, but on the whole I think new users are bound to be happy with the site right now and it just needs tweaking, rather than a major overhaul.

[Jim]

Flaming is more prominent in lists and journals than reviews. I find most people (that's most) are pretty easygoing to first-time reviewers, but write one dodgy list and it's a ****ing takedown.

Lists are pointless anyway.

[EcentricAgnostic]

Lists and journals should be scrapped.

[Eliminator]

More members = wider variety of tastes

not the case with sputnik most of the time

[Syncratic]

As much as I enjoy them, lists are really pointless...and if they aren't being put to prominence, so are journals

[Yield]

Lists and journals should be scrapped.

I agree with this. I like the way that the profiles are set up. But the band pages could be better in my opinion.

[EcentricAgnostic]

Wow I've been agreed with for once.

[Neoteric]

I don't really find anything wrong with the band pages.

[Eliminator]

The fact just about all of them are incomplete, the album images uploaded are almost all blurry and the wrong size, a lot of them lack proper info, and most of the band photos people choose aren't resized so they look horrible.

[Channing]

Okay then the users need to fix that. It's not a layout issue, it's a content issue.

[Eliminator]

i got aerosmith

[Channing]

lol

[The Door Mouse]

i got aerosmith
Wow Eliminator, even after the 60,000th time you've said it, it's still crazy funny!

[Eliminator]

i got aerosmith

[The Door Mouse]

lol
Don't worry chan I did for you

[Channing]

cross aretha franklin off the list i just got her too

[Eliminator]

i got aerosmith

[Abaddon2005]

I'm probably really late with this but yeah here are my two cents.

this whole community vs professionalism thing bothered me recently and while I haven't read the thread (if there is one) it sort of ties in with this.
The thing is, if you choose one, you can't truly have the other. I don't feel there is a compromise. if you want a professionally based site, those writers who type "poorly" should be removed, or in fact there should simply be a team of writers that write all the material published on the site, people who are qualified writers. I think the idea of the whole approved reviewer thing is neat, but it doesn't add to a great deal of professionalism. I can tell you right now that I don't have a degree in journalism, yet I'm an approved reviewer.(which I like, mind you)
If this site wants to carry a professional attitude, the users who write weak reviews shouldn't be able to write at all, because what you end up with if you don't is something that is half-done. On one hand you want a site that strives for professionalism, but tolerates the lesser reviews for the sake of humanity. People however, will still dismiss the site as not ''fully professional'', because that's simply how people are. As a result you create a gap between types of people.

Right now staff reviewers are given privileges to write reviews of albums before they are released. The gap this creates between staff writers and the regular user gets bigger because of this, the advantage of it is that the site looks more professional. In my opinion, the gap that is created weighs more heavily than any professional attitude gained. Next to that, like I said I haven't read the right thread for this, but what's the point in becoming more professional? The only advantage of the recognition that I could imagine being worth are financial ones, making it a commercial based(though it already kind of is, considering it's a .com site) review website, with, again, qualified people. My guess is the point of it is to get more recognition and links to Sputnik, which would ultimately lead to Sputnik getting more users. That would be cool, but personally I don't think the sacrifices that are to be made for that are worth it.

Now, if you'd have a community based site with a ''power to the people'' feel, obviously the lack of professionalism will be noticeable. Reviews that contain bad grammar are an important issue here. You can't really expect everyone to speak perfect English, and I find Jom's solutions really nice, considering he's willing to put time into helping them out. If they dismiss it, so be it, but then there are consequences.
From my own perspective, the community feel always fitted Sputnik(and previously Musicians forums) well. While there are inside jokes and whatnot, good God, it's an internet forum, let there be such things! If you want to join the forums roll with it. You could compare it to moving to a different country with different customs. Obviously the country isn't going to change its customs for you, nor should it. Anyway I'm straying from my point. I always felt that this was a hobby based site, a for-the-fans-by-the-fans:) kind of thing.

That in turn also leads me to the whole ''too much metal on the site''. I agree with what mx said, the other thing is that there is a clear reason that there is so much metal, and that's because apparently a good deal of the users enjoy it. It reflects the user tastes, if doesn't suit you, geez c'mon. I also think it's in a way very relevant. Since the site is prominently used by people younger than 30, it reflects (a part) of how the active music community of today is like, or at least that apparently want to discuss it.

My only other gripe are the lists, they're just bland and boring. Everyone is naming their top 10 favorite guitarists/vocalists/bands, yippie. I thought the journals were a better idea, but they're only accessible through a person's profile I believe.

As to whoever had the idea(think it was Lunchforthesky) to create groups of genres, I don't think that will work. Mostly people review whatever they feel like. A lot of people stick to one or two genres anyway, but I don't think any advantage that you get of that is bigger than the limits you put on people.

Last but not least, kudos to everyone who created very nice solutions for things like too much 5 ratings, I think that's really cool.:thumb:

[Dave de Sylvia]

I don't feel there is a compromise. if you want a professionally based site, those writers who type "poorly" should be removed, or in fact there should simply be a team of writers that write all the material published on the site, people who are qualified writers.
I don't see why. The staff and user sections are quite clearly separated and it would be difficult for anyone to confuse a staff review and a poorly written one. Sputnik is a development site, all staff members have effectively started their writing careers here, and most would admit that their early reviews were of a pretty poor relative standard.

If this site wants to carry a professional attitude, the users who write weak reviews shouldn't be able to write at all, because what you end up with if you don't is something that is half-done.
I don't see how. Once again, staff reviews are quite clearly marked and it's very easy for users to locate them.

On one hand you want a site that strives for professionalism, but tolerates the lesser reviews for the sake of humanity.
That's definitely not the reason they're tolerated, new users are (hopefully) offered advice from the moment the join the site and have countless examples of users who've come from meagre beginnings to become quite accomplished writers.

but what's the point in becoming more professional? The only advantage of the recognition that I could imagine being worth are financial ones, making it a commercial based(though it already kind of is, considering it's a .com site) review website, with, again, qualified people.
Sputnik isn't a commercial website, it contains just enough advertising to survive. The intention is not to make a profit, but that's not to say we can't set our sights high. We're already recognised by Metacritic.com as one of the 20 or so most dependable music reviews publications around, both online and in print. And that with 0 trained writers, 0 advertising budget and 0 impetus for personal profit? Sounds like an achievement to me.

Now, if you'd have a community based site with a ''power to the people'' feel, obviously the lack of professionalism will be noticeable. Reviews that contain bad grammar are an important issue here. You can't really expect everyone to speak perfect English, and I find Jom's solutions really nice, considering he's willing to put time into helping them out. If they dismiss it, so be it, but then there are consequences.
Again, Sputnik is a development site, the purpose more than anything is to learn. Staff reviewers have to maintain a high standard, and we'll definitely be looking to enforce proper spelling etc. in future whether through mods acting as editors or otherwise, but regular users need to make mistakes in order to learn.

Anyway I'm straying from my point. I always felt that this was a hobby based site, a for-the-fans-by-the-fans kind of thing.
It's still a hobby-based site. None of us are paid, most of us don't even receive free CDs, both staff and regular users just write because they enjoy it.

[Cocaine]

all staff members have effectively started their writing careers here, and most would admit that their early reviews were of a pretty poor relative standard.

My staff reviews are pretty poor too, hahah. I agree with everything you said though Plath.

[Liberi Fatali]

Tbph, my first review was my best and its all been downhill from there.

[Abaddon2005]

Thanks for pointing these things out Plath, I realize the only way Jeremy is making money from this is through the Amazon links as far as I can tell. I enjoy the fact that there aren't any annoying pop-ups when one enters the site.
It's also good to hear the viewpoints on newcomers, it's nice to hear that there will always be room for growth for people on Sputnik.

Now for the professionalism thing, it's easy to see whether a review is written is written by a staff member, but what kind of credibility is that to an outsider if the staff members are still hobbyists? No disrespect to any of the staff writers, because they are a member of that team for a reason, and I think a number of reviews posted on here are of an equal or even higher standard than some of those published in commercially based magazines/websites. The annoying thing is, from my experience, people want to see results and want to know people are qualified to do what they are doing.

But if Sputnik gets cited and referred to by other sites/organizations who have high reputations of their own, this will inevitably add to Sputnik's reputation as a well established review site.

Edit: Plath, I didn't mean to say poor writers are ''tolerated'' (for lack of a better word) now for the sake of humanity, but rather if the site would be the way I described it. Sorry for the mix up.

[Abaddon2005]

On a different note, I agree with whoever said that Sputnik and the forums should be tied in more. There's a great deal of responsibility to what the user wants to use obviously, but it would be nice if there is a stronger connection between the two.

[Liberi Fatali]

I've always been pro professionalism, but the thing is, we've got to maintain an inflow of users. The plan seems to be anybody can sign up, post and review, then gradually improve and rise up the standings until they might become staff someday. If the site focuses too heavily on the staff, then there is less incentive (or less visibility of incentive) for new reviewers to post and review and rise up.

One area I think sputnik could head, is aiming at young writers more. We all seem to acknowledge that we have improved substantially in reviewing ability over our time at sputnik, so focus in on that, and market it. Perhaps an idea would be to set up stronger learning functions, like guides, tips, Q&A's. That kind of stuff.

[Iluvatar]

A big problem I find is that as long as you can write an okay review from the get go, you're going to get very little help improving. Not to high-horse it or anything, but I've rarely ever gotten any sort of tips for improvement in my writing (and it certainly isn't up to the standard many other users have) that weren't just random flaming, except on two occasions I remember. I often see people get up to 20 reviews who haven't improved on their mediocre writing after that many reviews, because everyone just wants to bitch at crap reviews.

[Abaddon2005]

I agree with both of you guys. Ilu, what you say is true. I was actually reading the FAQ to the site earlier, and I think people should focus more on giving contributing comments, especially regarding criticism. I don't think the 'conversations' held in some album reviews are anything bad( AS LONG as they're not 20 posts of mindless flaming), but some posts are just out of line.
Obviously the mods work hard to remove any spam posts, but I think it could possibly help a good deal if users were made more aware of this.. giving it a more prominent place on the site or something. Right now there's a link on the bottom right of the site, so it's understandable for people to miss it, and once they read it, there's a chance it will be forgotten shortly after.

Liberi, I think that's a really interesting plan, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be interested in your proposal.

[Kaleid]

A big problem I find is that as long as you can write an okay review from the get go, you're going to get very little help improving. Not to high-horse it or anything, but I've rarely ever gotten any sort of tips for improvement in my writing (and it certainly isn't up to the standard many other users have) that weren't just random flaming, except on two occasions I remember. I often see people get up to 20 reviews who haven't improved on their mediocre writing after that many reviews, because everyone just wants to bitch at crap reviews.

That's a massively valid point. Perhaps there's just a feeling that some members, whether newbies, approved or staff, would not react well to constructive criticism. That attitude wouldn't help, and I for one would really like to see a few more threads besides the Writers' Block, which only tends to address problems rather than actively give general advice. There could perhaps be one for general tips that users feel would be worth contributing and give others some new ideas. I dunno, any ideas?

[morrissey]

A big problem I find is that as long as you can write an okay review from the get go, you're going to get very little help improving. Not to high-horse it or anything, but I've rarely ever gotten any sort of tips for improvement in my writing (and it certainly isn't up to the standard many other users have) that weren't just random flaming, except on two occasions I remember. I often see people get up to 20 reviews who haven't improved on their mediocre writing after that many reviews, because everyone just wants to bitch at crap reviews.
It's more improving through practice than getting any kind of advice or guidance. I mean if people ask for constructive criticism they'll get it, but usually people just say "good review" and move on. But people will naturally improve with time and repetition. I mean most teenagers don't write outside of school so the fact that they're even interested in writing is pretty great even if they're not that good at it initially.

[Iluvatar]

You're right morrissey, but there are things you just will never improve without outside help; quirks in your writing that you don't notice because they've always been there, but they're still wrong and generally stupid. Time and repetition are the two most key things to improving, but you still need criticism to really get anywhere.

It's not some giant, rampant problem, but I think that could be improved upon. I'm going to try and do stuff like that more often again, now that I'm back into reviewing.

[Kaleid]

I could be something as simple as asking every few reviews for CC. Just to make sure that you don't, as you say, keep little quirks in your writing. Though I'd argue that some quirks give the reviews character unique to that particular reviewer :)

[Jom]

I was actually reading the FAQ to the site earlier.

Haha, that hasn't been updated in months, unfortunately :/

Also I give constructive criticism to people, but only if they ask for it and they e-mail me, 'cause if the writing legitimately sucks, I would rather break it down for them and explain to them why it's 'their' and not 'there' (for example) or why it's "its" and not "it's." If I'm literally red-inking their entire review, I don't want them to feel embarrassed by having to do that out in the open where all can see it.

People are less inclined to give up and more inclined to improve when they're given private instruction instead of getting blasted by a bunch of punkass users.

But there's really nothing I can do outside of my biography in my profile where users can get a hold of me, outside of seeing my posts on the forums.

[Abaddon2005]

one of the things that could drastically improve a person's own writing is simply by doing a lot of reading. It expands your own vocabulary and gives you more options on how to be fresh and original in your own writing..unfortunately it's kind of hard to expect that from users/writers but maybe something like that might fit in with what Liberi had in my mind.

[Two-Headed Boy]

This probably was covered already, but the main complaint I have about Sputnik is it's always breaking down, but I don't know if there's a way to solidify a more reliable and consistantly working site.

But let me say, I've shopped around for review sites and this always comes out on top. Yeah, there are always going to be idiots to bring it down, but for the most part this is a helpful, reliable and friendly place.

[Neoteric]

The server downtimes are always irritating and we never get any explanations why it does this. I cannot access the site at 9pm usually.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Why would an explanation help? There's issues with the server and mx isn't always around to fix them right away. I brought it up in the mod forum last week and it started working better almost immediately. I haven't noticed any downtime over the past few days, but maybe I haven't been around at the right/wrong times.

[iarescientists]

I haven't noticed any downtime over the past few days, but maybe I haven't been around at the right/wrong times.

Site was down for a couple hours earlier in the afternoon.

[Stoic]

We get a down time nearly everyday SoP. Usually after 8pm GMT.