Album Rating: 4.5

Old staff reviews (2005-2007) were even worse, but hey! they were written by staff members ergo they must be flagged!

Album Rating: 5.0

Did anyone else hear "dropped my cellphone down the loo" the first time they heard it?

Album Rating: 4.1 | Sound Off

what

#Relevancy

Old staff reviews (2005-2007) were even worse [2], jeesh some of those were horrible.

Album Rating: 5.0

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6844036/david-bowie-blackstar-album-debuts-no-1-on-billboard-200-charts



Officially his first No. 1 album in the US

admittedly this opinion is not coming from the most objective place but jesus is getting flagged reviews seriously that important? haven't yet read this piece but good writing is good writing and bad writing is bad writing regardless of which review is the first one that pops up on an album

there really needs to be a staff editor of some sort in place. you know, almost like a respectable publication might have. it will never happen obviously, but that it's never even been discussed or considered says all that needs to be said about the general incompetence of this site.

i mean

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/69362/Triumvir-Foul-Triumvir-Foul/

need i say more?

Album Rating: 4.0

@Satellite: If you make a list about the possibility of a Staff Editor maybe it'll bring some attention to it. I'm pretty sure the mods haven't noticed anyone talking about it y'know?



Especially if it gets featured, maybe the userbase will take it seriously and the site will get the staff editor it needs.



Either that or I'm just being overly optimistic.

people losing their minds over a flagged review on a music website

it shouldn't be something that they have to have suggested to them by someone with 0 reviews. this site has the staff it deserves.

Album Rating: 5.0

I wouldn't be opposed to having an official Editor, it would only improve writing straight across the board. With that said, there's nothing stopping us from proofreading each others' work (i.e. the user proofreading thread). Despite what some may think, we don't have these huge delicate egos and we don't hiss and melt when presented with constructive criticism.

like how xeno fixed his abortion of a review?

i mean it obviously really doesn't matter but sputnik could be taken a lot more seriously as a music review site with only a modicum of effort

Album Rating: 5.0

Well I mean everyone does try their best , I mean come on, but I also get that this site hasn't developed to its full potential. It's no fault of any random staffer any more than it is yours or mine, however. There will always be things that need improvement, and for the most part I think everyone around these parts is pretty receptive to new ideas. It's that next implementation stage that takes time, and sometimes doesn't happen at all due to the sheer lack of people with the ability to affect real change.

then leave

this shouldn't even need to be said but fwiw none of the staffers (Atomic included) have complained about the comments in this thread in Olympus. maybe somebody said something privately but I highly, highly doubt that happened

and re: staff editors, I can't speak from any perspective but my own here. that said, reviewing and moderating/editing on Sput is (obviously) something people do with any expectation of compensation in any form, staff and mods included. if somebody (with the blessings of the rest of the people whose essays they'd edit) would be willing to step up and look over every single review that comes down the staff pipeline, that's their prerogative and I'd applaud the initiative. however, most folks don't have the time and/or wouldn't want to. I come to Sput because writing and reading about music is a nice break from the rest of my life, and because I genuinely enjoy participating in the community. I also think that (for me at least) editing every review would take most of the joy out of being here.

in short: at the moment, it is what it is. we're all trying our best, and sometimes what we produce isn't up to par with the best we've ever written (*cough cough DS2 cough cough*). coming forward with serious criticism and structural suggestions re: the site (as so many have done in this thread) is commendable. complaining about how the site is going down the shitter is not as productive, but ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Album Rating: 4.5

"Despite what some may think, we don't have these huge delicate egos and we don't hiss and melt when presented with constructive criticism."



yeah tell that to Xeno, Omaha, and StrangerofSorts



we have a dude who won't even acknowledge criticism altogether or edit his reviews when he releases a product more piss-poor than the vast majority of all the most amateur user reviewers on the entire site



a dude who uses his depression as a scapegoat to invalidate criticism because it hurts his feelings when he doesn't write something perfect



and finally a dude who won't even respond to criticism unless it comes from other contribs or staffers and they make sure they say it in a specific way that doesnt get his panties in a twist.

Album Rating: 4.5

BUT atomic has been good with the criticism so we should give him a break. its not like he flagged his own review anyway.

Album Rating: 5.0

Atomic is literally one of my favorite people on this entire site so yeah I don't get the swift and heavy handed backlash. Also his writing as a whole is top-notch.