UserReviews 12Soundoffs 23Approval 95%Site Rank 278Album Ratings 138Objectivity 89%Last Active 11-22-09 1:07 amJoined 07-21-04Forum Posts 2072Review Comments 118Band Edits 3
|
Things I Dislike About Sputnikmusic
Just as the title says. | | 1 | | Elitism
If you're not a high profile member, then you're nothing here. It doesn't matter how good your review, soundoff, list, journal entry, or anything else is; if no one knows you, no one cares. This also goes with the band you review too. If you write a mediocre 16th review for a high profile album that basically repeats the same thing every other review for it has already said, you'll still get plenty of feedback and praise for it, but if you write a review for some obscure band, no one will care, no matter the caliber of the review. However, don?t confuse this with bias toward staff reviewers, as they deserve the credit they receive. This only applies to idiots that consistently contribute low quality reviews and boring lists, yet continue to take the light from others more deserving. | | 2 | | Double Standards
"Everyone's entitled to his opinion." People say this all the time, but how many people actually put this philosophy to practice? Any time there's a negative review about an album that is overwhelmingly loved by the rest of the site, people start throwing accusations about how the author is too biased against the album to properly review it, and that his claims are not backed up very well. What's amazing is that, no matter how well the author actually does support his position, there will always be idiots who say he needs to back his opinions up. When someone writes a positive review for a loved album, however, he can put as little detail into it as possible, and everyone loves it. | | 3 | | Boring Lists
Alice in Chains starts with "A". Bad Brains starts with "B". Children of Bodom starts with "C". I get the point. It's not necessary to make a new list every two days telling me about it. I know you might have just discovered the alphabet, but as a rule of thumb, if your list is going to be based off of it, it's going to suck. I also understand that people on this site like Metallica, At The Drive-In, Radiohead, Opeth, Megadeth, Slayer, Pink Floyd, and a bunch of other bands that have been on a million and three lists about the same thing. I get it already. It wouldn't hurt to put a little effort into a list once in a while. Deions exist for a reason and they make a list much more helpful and interesting than it otherwise would be as just a string of band names. | | 4 | | Unnecessary Reviews
As of right now there are ten reviews for Metallica's ...And Justice for All. Not to pick on the guy who just added this review, but when metallicaman8, Sputnikmusic's very own Metallica superfanboy, says that the review wasn't needed, then you know the review truly wasn't needed. There are tons of albums submitted to the Sputnik database that don't have reviews attached to them, and even more albums that haven't even been submitted, let alone reviewed. If Sputnikmusic wants to become a more established review site, then the community needs to branch out instead of bulk up. However, with this said, there is nothing wrong with an album having multiple reviews attached to it, granted that the reviews contribute something that hasn't already been brought up ten times already. | | 5 | | Misunderstanding of Objectiveness and Subjectiveness
Don't confuse this with the objectivity rating that's attached to a user's album rating. When I say objectiveness and subjectivity, I'm talking about the way people review. A review reflects the opinions of the reviewer, and however he chooses to review, be it in an objective or subjective way, is up to him. Neither one is exclusively better than the other, depending on how the review is written. Many users don't understand this, and stereotype objectiveness and subjectiveness in the following way: (1) if the rating is the inversion of that album's reputation (i.e. a negative review for Master of Puppets), the review is subjective (2) if the album's reputation is mediocre and the review rating is either very high or very low, the review is subjective (3) if the reputation of the album is high (such as with Relationship of Command) or very low (such as with Back to Bedlam), and the review rating is moderate, the review is objective. This is very wrong and harmful for the community, as subjective reviews are typically regarded as inferior and taken less seriously than a supposedly objective review. And since people stereotype reviews in this way, some reviews, whose intent is objectiveness, are misunderstood, and not taken seriously. | | 6 | | Inflated and Deflated Album Ratings
Come on now, be reasonable. Not every Iron Maiden album is a 5, and not every pop album ever made is a 1. Some people seriously need to think about an album for more than two seconds before they rate it, and some people need to actually listen to an album before they even think about rating it. A lot of this comes from narrow minded genre elitists who hate anything outside of the genre, weather or not they actually know anything about anything outside of the genre to begin with. | | 7 | | Overly Sensitive Users
Some people have a huge hissy fit when their review gets a negative vote and they get bumped from being the 843rd ranked reviewer to the 844th. It's not like your site ranking actually means anything outside of Sputnikmusic anyway, and besides, if you're so sure that your reviewing is so great, why are you concerned with what other people think anyway? Getting a "no" vote is not the end of the world. Even the staff reviewers have less than a 100% approval rating. It is not a big deal. What may be worse than this, though, is the way some users patronize others, even when their reviews are bad. If a review is bad, tell the reviewer it is! But tell him what he needs to work on as well. Don't just say "THIS REVEIW SUX BALLS LOL!!1." This isn't just a review site, but this a community as well, and if people are willing to help others then both aspects of the site are only going to improve. | |
Dave de Sylvia
01.15.07 | The list feature is only supposed to be for music-related things, but I'll leave this up because it's actually interesting. Your first point isn't elitism though, it's just that people are more likely to read things when they have a reasonable idea of what to expect. | FlawedPerfection
01.15.07 | You bring up good points, but this is what happens when you have a community site. It's why we have moderators to deal with this crap. When someone starts reviewing on this site, chances are they're going to review something they really like. So of course there are going to be a bunch of mediocre Metallica reviews. A lot of people like Metallica, and a lot of first reviews suck.
So yeah, these are just the inevitable issues of having a community-based site. | Eliminator
01.15.07 | It's pretty obvious that most people don't give a shit. All of this stuff has been going on for two years, longer than that, here. Making a list bitching to people on this site about things they're all pretty much aware of is pointless. | Eliminator
01.15.07 | yeah what FP said | samthebassman
01.15.07 | whether you like it or not I think all this guy's points are valid! | Oddsen
01.15.07 | This is all ture but can't be so easily fixed
| Cocaine
01.15.07 | Dude, you go around rating random albums you've clearly never heard 1, your opinion isn't valid.
@Samthebassman. | Cocaine
01.15.07 | Even the staff reviewers have less than a 100% approval rating.
I do :P | superfascist
01.15.07 | Well, not all the staff reviewers do. :) | Cocaine
01.15.07 | I know, I agree with you though.
I sometimes get bitchy with negs/positives, but that's only because negging a review without a comment is USELESS. If somebody were to neg a review of mine and tell me why I'd be more than accepting. It's all about giving the writer something to improve on. | AmericnZero02
01.15.07 | This is the best list I've read in a while. I was just thinking about 1 and 6 the other day. | IsItLuck?
01.15.07 | I agree with most of this. hey, who cares if it's not really that music related, it's a good list. which is rare. | mynameischan
01.15.07 | This list would be better if people actually would listen to what it's saying. | jameskukucka
01.15.07 | i agree 100 percent with this whole list... | Jom
01.15.07 | I hope you're not taking potshots at me, 'cause I don't think I ever come across as some asshole elitist that has double standards and is also overly sensitive... 'cause that's not me. Unless you'd like to say why you think so, anyway. I'm more interested in if you're directly speaking to me, but I do agree with a lot of your list... it's just what the others have said - good luck trying to fix things that are out of your control. Trust me, I've tried, but then realized that in the end, nobody really gives a shit, so I just make do with what I have and call it a day. | Abaddon2005
01.15.07 | First of, nice and original list, but point 5 is unnecessary, simply because every music review is subjective. What can be said though, is that some reviews are a bit more objective in their description of the album.
Example: ''The guitar work on this album is technical." while that CAN be subjective, it's often objective because it's something that, to an extend is measurable. | superfascist
01.15.07 | Jom, your name did not cross my mind once while I was writing this list. | Jom
01.15.07 | Awesome. That is rad. Carry on, then. | samthebassman
01.15.07 | Cocaine, my man, what are you saying? any proof in what you are saying?
My opinion is as valid as yours, even if you dont know what you are talking about!
Why the assumptions? | Bfhurricane
01.15.07 | I give this list a standing ovation. But I'm a little funny about #1, like I've written 4 album reviews for 4 albums that people hardly know about, but I'm at the point where I don't give a shit if people don't recognize me for those reviews. | NOTINTHEFACE
01.15.07 | I thought this was going to be a pointless flame-fest but I was pleasantly suprised. I recall when I first joined the site and I had been a member for about 2 months when I read a clearly biased review for "The Reason" by Hoobastank. I like that album very much and I got very ticked off at the people who were bashing it without any basis whatsoever for their opinions. But I think thats something you'll encounter in any community, and I think that Sputnik has done a very fine job of restraining that kind of thinking.
This is much more tactful than that one time the guy posted the fake review so he could bash Sputnik, and all the pointless "review-replies" that followed. I laughed my balls off tho :-P | grungeguy88
01.15.07 | hopefully this list helps a bit | Hatshepsut
01.15.07 | you can pretty easily climb up in the site's rankings. Just post enough and people will know you. | Patrick
01.15.07 | I agree 100%. Some bastards think that just because they're really cool online means that they can abuse those who are less. Well, those douches can get a life, cuz folks, this is the internet. | 3TwoCan3
01.15.07 | i coudn't agree more. FP raises a good point though. | Cocaine
01.15.07 | You've obviously had your ratings changed or deleted. I remember reporting you for rating ever CoF and Cannibal Corpse album a 1, and several other albums 1.5.
@Samthebassman. | samthebassman
01.15.07 | ^
I didnt realize that to participate in this site I had to like everything | labonza01
01.15.07 | Thank you Superfacist. Everybody has fallen victim to atleast one thing on this list within the community of Sputnik, and most of the time, it's completely unnecessary. One thing you missed, though, was the way that members are constantly put down and have their reviews negged based solely on thier musical taste. People really need to knock that off, you are, by no means, inferior to any person on this site because you like an unpopular genre or band, does nobody else see this?
| JumpTheF**kUp
01.15.07 | I'm pretty sure that 1 stems from 6. The so called 'elitists' look down upon people who do inflate/deflate album ratings. To be an 'elitist' you basically have to be willing to judge music as others do (eg. giving pop more than 1's and such).
And no offence to any of the staff, I mean you do a great job, but I think the inclusion of featured staff reviews and staff picks is basically breeding elitism. I mean, it basically means that they're a notch above the rest of the users, and while they've earned it through their hard work and reviews and stuff, its probably a bit intimidating to new users when their half decent reviews are shunned for staff members. Or something.
That might not have made sense but whatever.
And also what FP said. | ScelusNefas
01.15.07 | I agree with your points | Angmar
01.15.07 | I agree with this list but people are people u know everyone does stuff. Some more so than others but u get the idea. | asheroth
01.15.07 | This is one of the best lists I've ever seen. Instead of mindlessly whinging about how nobody comments your reviews (which is kinda what I was expecting) you actually back your points up.
With your 'elitism' point, I'm pretty sure FP was right when he pointed out that this was a community site. In such an environment, some people will always rise to the top, just because they're more active on the site. The only way to get recognition, if you want it, is to consistently write good reviews, and be active around the site. That's what I've been trying to do lately. | wikuk
01.16.07 | Your very first sentence (and the explenation behind it) sucks and is very invalid. The rest however is ace. | rockstar18
01.16.07 | I agree with this list, but at same time the site would be pretty boring if we didnt have some of those points. |
|
Stumble
Digg
Del.icio.us