Opening up Reviews

[Dyntheos]

I'd like to open up the review forums to discussion, however I'd like that discussion to be of a higher standard than the rest of the boards.

I'd like this thread to collect some ideas and possible guidelines on such a course, so we can see more traffic in our review sub forums here.

I'd be keeping the current format for the review itself, I'm looking for a possible structure or ruleset that people can follow when responding to a review or post within a review thread.

I've some ideas but I'd like to hear from you guys before I implement anything.

:werd:

[Progenitor]

it'd be best if anything posted in there was done impartially and not a review or discussion based on biased dislike of anything being reviewed.

[Kryopsis]

The idea is interesting, Dyntheos, but how will you filter the comments? You can't expect a high standard of discussion: it will end up as "OMG U N00B U DONT LIEK DA GAME LOLzzz!!!!1".

[Riess]

That's what moderators are for, Dictionary. And you can indeed expect a high standard, you just need the manpower to weed out the posts that don't meet it. I think we have that. :D

[Kryopsis]

Seeing how certain you are, I would certainly like the review section to be opened up.

I think proper grammar and punctuation should be a prerequisite to comment on a review :). .- -. -.. / -. --- / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .

[jetfx]

Perhaps the replies should be something like agree, disagree or neutral. So a poster would reply whether or not they agreed with the review and list off about three reasons in a small paragraph why they agreed or disagreed with the review, based on seeing the film, playing the game or reading the book.

For example, based on my review of Pirates of the Caribbean II (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?p=1588534#post1588534):Agree

I found the film to be very enjoyable if a bit preposterous. Johnny Depp's acting once again was top notch. The music and cinemtography were pretty good too.OrDisagree

The Movie was far to long and the plot completely ridiculous. The action was overdone and the focus was more on the style than any substance. Johnny Depp's acting was the film's only saving grace, but the characters were all flat and one dimensional.

Now that's just an idea, and my example replies are rather short because I've already said all I could think of in the review. Another person might have more to say coming from a different perspective. At least this would keep replies like "OMG U N00B U DONT LIEK DA GAME LOLzzz!!!!1" to a minimum.

[reki]

I'd be keen to see some kind of rating mod hacked in, even though it would give fisheh an aneurysm.

[Nurizeko]

Jetfx has a good idea.

Reki's is also worth considoration.

Since the original review has already done that particular job, the Agree or Disagree system gives a nice simple overview if your just skimming down the thread, seeing the ratio of those who agreed with the review and those who didnt, with their own little input as to why they came to that conclusion below the bold text.

Kinda in the way reviews are rated in comment threads on websites with book/film/game/whatever reviews.

In short...

Agree

:jig:

[Benjamin]

I don't like jetfx's idea, sorry mate :)

Being a Movie review or any review, I don't think that most people will have an exact Agree/disagree veiw on the article being discused, therefore making it pritty hard to have an accurite label. I'd say that the majority of people who want to comment would agree with one part and disagree with another whilst slightly agreeing on somthing else. Most of the posts will end up having to be classed as "Neutral" Pritty much making the point of the agree/disagree system of little to no use.

To be honst, I don't see any need for any kind of a system to be implace on this section of the forums other. It idea feels constrained and inaccurate. It just doesn't seem nessesary. The idea of having the discusion to a higher standard is pritty much all it needs.

[Kryopsis]

B.B.,
How about this (again, using the PotC example):

Agree:
+The plot is ridiculous [blah blah blah]
+The idea of Davy Jones owning the soul of Jack is ridiculous [blah blah]
+The SFX were very well done [etc]

Disagree:
+The script was terrible, with lots of plotholes and non-sequitur moments.
+The humour was bland and forced.
+The characters other than Davy Jones were flat and uninteresting. Gone is the charm of Jack Sparrow and as for Keira Knightley, she shouldn't even be allowed to watch movies to prevent her ruining them .

[b]Final thought: Although the special effects were top-notch, the Pirates of the Carribean II was a quest to make more money on a successful debut. It was bloodier and darker than the previous movie, likely to accomodate the adult fans, yet it was full of childish non-sequitur stupidity that Disney is famous for.
Overall: Disagree.

In this example, I just placed random thoughts under the two categories. They should be more like "As you said, [something], I think [something] but [something]. I think you are right/wrong."

[darkelf]

I'm thinking about something along the lines of the review section of another forum I know about. When you post the review, you also make a poll with the options I liked it, I didn't like it or I think it was average, not that exact wording though. I tihnk this'd work.

[Eboli]

Reading some of the reviews my main problem is with the choice of word usage. Some of the words chosen, on both the agree and disagree side, are very powerful. Such as

preposterous
ridiculous
incredible
awesome
spectacular

etc.

I myself usually get turned off any review that comes across either too positive or too negative. I prefer a more technical analysis with less opinion.

For example one of Dictionary's points

-The Script was terrible, with lots of plotholes and non-sequitur moments.

"The script was terrible" is more of a personal point. A plothole is something one usually can't argue with, whether a script is "terrible" or not is personal opinion.

I'd write it as

-The script contained many plotholes and non-sequitur moments, lending to a storyline that was difficult to follow.

From that the reader can come to their own conclusion that it's probably a terrible script.

Edit:
Also for example

Final thought: Although the special effects were top-notch, the Pirates of the Carribean II was a quest to make more money on a successful debut. It was bloodier and darker than the previous movie, likely to accomodate the adult fans, yet it was full of childish non-sequitur stupidity that Disney is famous for.


I think a review would be a better service if it didn't try to state opinions as facts. For example the "non-sequitur stupidity that Disney is famous for", Is that a fact or the author's opinion?

I'd write it as

Final Thought: POTC was a movie with well done special effects that will likely have a successful debut. It is bloodier and darker than it's previous incarnation, which will please adult fans, yet conversely it's somewhat childish plot and non-sequitur moments may turn off older audiences.


Also I realize that a review IS Personal Opinion, but I think that it should be approached and written impartially. The more neutral it is written, and in a manner that uses solid quantitative facts (not possible but still should try) the less people can disagree with you and the less argument you can have. An ideal review is one where the reader can't help but be forced to agree with you based on you impartial flawless breakdown/analysis of something.

[Benjamin]

Devil's Dictionary: It's not bad, I much prefer that style then the last. But some people don't like writing in that style at all.

Some review articles in papers, magazies the web etc... have a good/bad/ugly similar style at the begining and then write the rest fo the review underneth, or vice-versa which is decent enough. Sometimes they will even write the whole of a particular review in the good/bad/ugly format having lengthy reasons for each. It's all to do with opening up the format that can let so much more spring out of it. The disagree/agree still feel too "heavy" as words to use in commenting in reviews, especial films where thereis so much to potentialy rip appart and discuss in depth (if you wish to)

A nice clean soild post would be best in my opinion. I'm more inclined to go for a decent write up rather then bullet points or lists.
Having the bullet points as you listed, it's kind of hard to have a "higher standard of discussion" whilst keeping it relitivly simple in that style. If you want to have an open discussion about peoples opinions, it doesn't leave much open to talk about in that particular format. You would have to refer back to your points listed and expand on them in your "final thought" if you wish to have a flowing conversation of the subject. otherwise the next reply will be "you though the acting was bad? what gave you this impression?". Adressing things like this in a decent write up would adviod the potential longwinded'ness as it were.


Personaly, as long as the post is readable, coherent and decent, I think it should be open to write how people want to. Using that system you displayed or not. For some people, a particular style of writing works best for them and lets their ideas and thoughts flow, but not so well for others. I don't like the idea of a system to be frank. On the intial review, fine fair enough... people may have different styles and wont like keeping to a system but on a board such as this, I can see the argument that there needs to be some sort of consistancy, but I don't feel that there is any need for that kind of that clinical consitancy when discussing the article itself. As I said before it feels unnessessarly constrained to have it in any particular format.

Readble posts that offer discussion and good modding is all thats needed. To futher the point, personaly I don't like the system that is used for the Film reviews. Too clinical. With games it's not so bad and you can get away with it but on films I'm not so keen. Have a solid clean write up that can refeclt the wrtiers style the way they want, it would be more um... journalistic...(if thats a word) but I suppose this particular matter is more for me to take my ass down to forum issues.

[Mnementh]

Ive never used it because Its too much work making a shackreview fit into the silly template.

How about you make it a form-based thingie.

[Kryopsis]

An ideal review is one where the reader can't help but be forced to agree with you based on you impartial flawless breakdown/analysis of something.
You are not reading a review, Eboli, you are reading a personal comment.
Such a comment should state why YOU agree or disagree with the reviewer. You aren't trying to encourage or discourage other people from seeing it, you are not paid to write it, you aren't planning to send it to the national newspaper.

An alternative to all this would be having a topic per review in this forum where people could discuss the review or comment on it.
Frankly, I think it would work in combinatiton with the poll system which was suggested earlier.


But yeah, I found PotC II dispeakable and wouldn't even comment on a review of it.

[Eboli]

What's not a review? I thought we were talking about reviews?

If you're not trying to encourage or discourage someone from seeing something then it should be written impartially. I would like something written in a more "national newspaper" style of "Review" as opposed to a "It was cool because it had lasers pew pew" type manner.

And if you want it to be just personal opinion that's cool too I guess. I just thought that the whole point of the review section was to read careful though out arguments and no op-ed pieces.

[Kryopsis]

We are talking about the comments people would write to the reviews, not the reviews themselves.

[Eboli]

Ah okay perhaps I'm a bit confused :? I thought we were talking about the review too. My bad.

[Retroboy]

You can't really have a discussion in point form. Point form is intended for a sound-bite type of approach where you or your audience are pressed for time. Although I like the agree/disagree concept, it's too limiting to be anything other than a rigid debate.

Dynz0rs, when you said open them up, did you mean for comment, or for discussion?

Example of discussion:
A: ...and the part where Superman gets whalloped is just silly.
B: Why? I enjoyed that part and it fits within the understanding of how his powers work.
A: Because it was a senseless plot twist. The screenwriters didn't.. (further explanation follows)


Example of comment:
A: ...and the part where Superman gets whalloped is just silly.
B: I disagree. I liked that part and it fits within the credo.
<conversation ends>

-- Retro

[Dyntheos]

discussion

[Dorkdav]

I don't think much needs to be done. Just stricter enforcement of the rules. Warnings given out readily and what not.

I'm against a required stucture for posts. I think that would hinder discussion.

I think your idea is a good one. It would defintly be more rewarding for the writer if he knew people were reading and commenting on it. And readers can ask for clarification and expansion if needed.

[AceRimmer]

Go for it. I'm sure many people are itching to comment on reviews, but can't because only the review posts are allowed in there, which stifles discussion.

[jetfx]

Without structured comments you get free-form discussion like we have here in the General Discussions. Not that that's bad, but if you want serious discussion about the reviews it will likely need to be heavily moderated to keep things serious. Structured comments allow less need for moderation.

The comments do not need to be in point form, perhaps there is a way to strike some happy medium.

[Slashco]

I'm also against weighing it down with a ton of rigidly enforced rules. An atmosphere of fear and repression doesn't exactly foster discussion. I'd treat it as any other forum, maybe (if you really want to) being a bit more stringent about posts that go off-topic or are of very poor quality.

[Tails]

If each review is going to have its comments, we'll have to give each review its own thread, so that the next review for the same book/movie/game isn't drowned out in a series of comments on the first review. And that itself has its own problems.

[Lefty]

Wasn't there some kind of hack somewhere on the internet wich had a good review + comment system?
Wich had a rating system aswell.

Can't remember the name but someone posted it a while ago.

[AceRimmer]

Perhaps we could have a new subforum to house the discussions for reviews, rather than in the same thread as Tails suggested.

[BrianGeneral]

However, reviews normally only last for a single post, so I think discussing in the same thread can be better------actually, if your review got swamped by other reviews simply means that the piece of work isn't good enough.

[Tails]

I think that the main thing lacking in the Review forums is feedback on the review itself, so that the authors can write better reviews for next time. Comments in the review forum should be concerned with the quality of the review rather than whether or not they agree or disagree. For example:

"POLL: How good was this review?

5. Excellent
4. Good
3. Average
2. Poor
1. Terrible"

Perhaps along with this should be some way of adding a comment saying, "Review is too biased", "Review is incomplete", or "Review provides too little analysis "

[M37]

To save space or at least just work for the mods why not put the Book/Game/ Movie review threads Into one fourm?

So it would look like this

M37 reviews Homeworld [Computer game]
M37 reviews the Hound of the Baskervills [Book]
M37 reviews King Kong [Movie]

Well that is my 2 RU's worth.

[A176]

hi,

structured posts for review replies = ass. the thread should revolve around discussing the review/reviewer's viewpoint, and thus the game. of course, moderation will be held to controlling the 'fan boy' dribble about the minor and "i couldnt care less" aspects of the game.

[Tails]

If everyone contributes their viewpoint and opinions with simple unstructured comments, what will make a review any different from a GD thread?

[Retroboy]

Tails - they're centralized and you can find it easily at any point in the future, and you can impose a review "template" for the first post. Also, review discussion can continue easily if, for example, someone reads a book two months after the initial review of it was posted and they wish to contribute something to an already lengthy review thread.

Better 20 review threads per page than 1 review thread per every 40 pages with loads of people reposting their thoughts about reviews in new threads because the search function wasn't used or it didn't find the previous one.

-- Retro

[Benjamin]

structured posts for review replies = ass.

Thats what I've been trying to say, but it looks like A176 has put it in the best way. :p

[Retroboy]

It's because he stated it in such an unstructured fashion.

See? It works! :jig:

-- Retro

[Dyntheos]

hmm well this isn't generating as much discussion as I'd have liked. Is this an indication that reviews should be nuked?

I'd like keep them, but the question is how to go about that without making it a headache to mod?

Should it merely be that it has the same rules as GD except for the first post or any additional formal reviews within the thread, and we keep the subforums there merely as easy access to different review types?

[ionfish]

To be honest, I think we only need one additional rule: all posts must be substantive. Brief, throwaway remarks aren't what we're looking for, so they'll get zapped. Other than that I don't see the need to restrict the discussion too much.

[Retroboy]

Fishie wins. Quote him, and maybe add a bit about discussing the REVIEW, not the person posting it (as you could arguably have a substantive discussion about how out-to-lunch someone is), and ensure all threads must start with a review, and it's all gravy. :)

I think it's not engendering a whack of discussion because it simply makes sense, and because there's so little traffic around reviews now that people don't think about that forum too much (the last posts in each forum are three weeks, five weeks, and seven weeks old). If you drive up traffic there, threads like this would be busier here.

-- Retro

[jetfx]

Considering that there is little support for structured comments, Fishy's idea is best. It keeps things simple in terms of additional rules, and should keep meaningless posts to a minimum.

[Cable]

Perhaps allow omnislashing but not so that people can not "tear up" the interview, but take many portions of the interview and add their opinion about it, whether they agree or disagree - not to ween out spelling or grammar!

Just a thought :)

-Cable

[Retroboy]

Cable, for clarity: Omnislashing means quoting "out of context" for the purpose of dissembling and destructive argument. Example:
people can not "tear up" Got a problem with people crying or something? What would you do - surgically remove people's tear ducts? How would they keep their eyes lubricated? Geez, you're a cruel bastard, eh?

That sort of thing. Refuting specific points is one thing, Omnislashing is another one. :)

-- Retro

[Cable]

I thought Omnislashing was just mass-quoting people's posts in your reply... my bad :D

And that example made me chuckle somewhat :)

-Cable

[SquidDNA]

It's both, really. You should be able to make your point in response to someone else's without addressing it line by line.

[Retroboy]

Not according to the Wiki (http://wiki.reliccommunity.com/Omnislashing). Bad Squiddie! :)

-- Retro, who notes this debate has come up before.

[Da_Fish]

Ionfish has the right Idea. All people have to do is state whether or not they liked playing the game(or whether ot not they agreed/disagreed with the members review) and give their reasons why. As Fishie said:

I think we only need one additional rule: all posts must be substantive. Brief, throwaway remarks aren't what we're looking for, so they'll get zapped.

I would really like to share my opinion on some of the games in the review section as I've played a good few of them.

[SquidDNA]

Now hold on right there, Retro. I knew Omnislash. Omnislash was a good friend of mine. And Retro, you are no Omnislash.

/spam

Let's go with it. I've been waiting for discussion but there hasn't been any in weeks, months?

[M37]

I think having some sort of structure to posts in the review section is a good idea and forces pople to put some thought also it prevents us from being flooded with useless and unreadable crap. Though perhaps responses should be allowed so long as they adhere to general standards.

Also As I mentioned earlier perhaps all three forums should be merged and some sort of Tag such as
[Computer game] or [Movie] be added to differentiate between the types of reviews. This ought to save moderators time.

[Retroboy]

OMG OMNISLASH IS TEH REINTARNATION OF JACK KENEDY!!1

lol squiddibles. :)

And I like M37's idea. Tagging reviews would put more traffic on a single forum, which is a good thing. Another minor rule is to ensure the review quotes the exact syntax of the work's title, whatever it is, to promote easy searching.

-- Retro

[M37]

:dito:

A Think something should be done afterall thier are several piriate and Ninja movies Piriests of the Carabian 2 and underworld that have yet to be replied to despite thier populairity.

[AceRimmer]

I think Ionfish's proposal is better as structured posts all tend to look a bit samey and boring to read after awhile. As long as the post isn't inane or "Warcraft III 0000100100101OMG FTW!!!!!" or that sort of rubbish, then it should be fine.

[ionfish]

Thanks for the input guys, I'm currently in the process of revising the Reviews forums so they'll be closed to new posting until everything is shipshape.