Album Rating: 3.5

Hey maybe spend more than 15 minutes on a review and maybe you can be the judge on what is or isn't lazy.

Album Rating: 2.5

That BOO review WAS pretty trash, but then there's next to nothing to say about that album so I'm kinda torn.

Album Rating: 3.5

Yeah, I can see what you're saying. Though I'll say Brendan did a solid job with his review.

Album Rating: 2.0

"next to nothing to say about that album"



review "WAS pretty trash"



I'm not gonna pretend it was one of my better reviews (it's fine, but definitely a filler review on my part, but what is that logic? I dibbed it thinking it might be good and put out a review as promised on an album with little substance. Read some of my other reviews instead of acting like I don't put effort into my writing, at least from time to time.

Album Rating: 3.5

I'd think that a staff reviewer would be held to a somewhat higher standard, but I digress. We have Trebor and we already know what he did as a joke.

Album Rating: 2.0

1. We're not getting paid for this.



2. What trebor does is his business. I've never written a joke review. Some are less substantial than others, but always done seriously. There's nothing especially wrong with my BoO review, you're just being a baby.

Album Rating: 3.5

Except for the fact that it unflagged a significantly more substantial review, and even some of the Sput base (namely Get Low) will back me up on that.

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

who gives a fuck its not like its the default review for that album

Album Rating: 2.0

Feel free to ask one of the mods to flag it then. I never demanded that it be flagged, nor denied another flag. Just turned in my homework and went home. It'll be the mod's decision whether they want to follow up the request, but it's your right to ask and I'm not gonna shut it down.

Album Rating: 3.5

The rest of the mods seem to not like the other guy so ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Album Rating: 2.5

I agree that we don't need to reference old stuff at this point, but I don't think writers should be stopped from doing it either. Go read any professional review or high traffic metal site and they do the same thing.

A lot of people look at this band from that perspective. I get that it's repetitive but don't think it's objectively poor form to do. Will certainly be something I consider more on my next review.

Agent...

You either spend too much time on this website or are way to invested in it. Or maybe just a little bit of both.

It's a user based community. Even these ppl that are "staff" and "contributor" really don't have much more prestige/perks than the rest of us except for the fancy title, probably some advance copies of new releases, and being able to feature lists. There's probably more but I doubt it's anything too special or worth this "standard" you expect them to be held to.

Album Rating: 3.5

The easiest standard I can point to is "if it gets taken off Metacritic for being shit, it's probably not that professional of a review." Granted, Gameofmetal's a lot better about that than Trebor was last go around, but yeah. I'll def agree that I'm too invested, but I'm in too deep to slow down abruptly now.

Album Rating: 3.5

Besides, I'm sure someone who spent a ton of time writing their review would feel cheated if they got pushed to the side for some sloppy-ass two paragraph rant.

Album Rating: 2.5

Notice I'm picking up a couple of negs on this one. Just wondered if there was any more feedback out there I could use to improve my writing?

Or is it just the lazy intro?

Also what's the policy on substantially updating reviews here? Would like to have another crack at parts of this if possible.

Album Rating: 2.0

Don’t think we have one unless you start replacing your reviews with long winded descriptions of your morning bowel movements or something. For a little while I was going through my old 2013-15 reviews and rewriting them, but it got too tedious for me. You can edit pretty freely.

Album Rating: 2.0

Every thread Agent is in turns into an absolute shitshow.

What was Trebors review that you keep referencing?

Not sure if everyone thinks this way, but to me, all a flagged review means is that it is the review that will have the most comments further down the road. Any other review will get some stuff for a few days from being published, maybe a week/month down the road, but really that is it.

I think a flagged review is more for people that aren't users on the site and might be the only one they read to get a quick overview of something. When I comment on a review that is getting several pages of comments and isn't still on the front page or getting a feature, I usually have no memory of the review or who wrote it. Realistically, at that point, we probably aren't talking about the review anymore anyway.

I dunno. It is what it is and if you want to get upset about it, go for it, I guess.

Album Rating: 3.5

@Ecnalzen: That one where he was like "This is shit. Embarrassing." that got kicked off Metacritic lmao

And yeah the thing about the flagged review is that I'd think it ought to be the best representation of the album possible, which is part of why I'm especially happy Simon got staff. His reviews are usually top-notch.

Album Rating: 3.5

I'm happy for everyone that got promoted, but Dewinged and Simon are the most notable ones I'm happy for.