This is sad...Author angry over review spams blog

superflytnt wrote:
" Agreed. 3 sentences do not a review make."
I've just done a three sentence one of Sucker Punch. It's also a three word review as well.

superflytnt wrote:

Agreed. 3 sentences do not a review make.

Done well, which it wasn't in this case, the short review is a thing of beauty.

Ray Suzuki of Pitchfork once reviewed the new Jet album with a YouTube of a monkey drinking its own piss. I'd much rather see a boardgame review like that than yet another glorified component list.

Weeks (and others)

I agree that criticism is something that requires serious effort. However, you've also opposed the more 'established' reviewers on BGG. How do you reconcile the aversion of tastemakers and amateur reviewers?

On re-reading it I suppose that review isn't too bad. It's economical. Still could have went into the plot a little more.

Angry Weeks wrote:

In the end the value of reviewers is debateable. The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that the reviewer is worthless

Context and Community is key.

I'd qualify the above to say, "A reviewer without a solid context & history to the reader, is largely worthless.".

Yea, the vast majority of thumbs-up-for-all "reviews" at BGG tend to be substantially worthless, in the face of the reflexive thumbing that goes on and feedback-loops the popular but worthless above the useful. BGG is a context-less vacuum when it comes to the bulk of reviews. Your comment about Puerto Rico is a perfect case in point. That's how I got my copy.

But given a reviewer - be it movie, music, video or board-game - that the reader *knows* tends to frequently match their preferences, and deliver consistently _useful_ buy recommendations, that reviewer can save the reader a lot of time & money wasted on worthless high-thumb dreck, and let them get right to the FUN.
And a good *familiar* reviewer that's not too close to your preferences can also drag your tastes into new territory that you'd normally never consider.

I'm not going to buy everything Matt or Michael or Pete or Ken B etc etc likes or recommends. But I'm going to know from my prior history that something they're strong on may be worth a close look and investing some time comparing across reviews from other familiar reviewers and the *local* Community.

And when I see an unfamiliar reviewer here, I can also better gauge their BS factor based on the comments and responses they draw from a more 'known' pool of opinions.

Not to mention that *every* review here is fundamentally assisted by the uncensored discussions that accompany it. That community response helps you differentiate when a given 'trusted' reviewer is getting way off into the weeds. And help you tell when that game he just slammed is a product of his just having a blind spot and still could be worth a shot.

And this all comes back to the solid value-loss when you convert communities like Boardgamenews into a Press Release stream. You want those reviewers you prefer elevated out of the morass. A community often tends to do that. What you do not want for reviews is a strict democracy.

The aftermath...

jacquelinehowett.blogspot.com/

ubarose wrote:

Ryan B. wrote: The aftermath...

jacquelinehowett.blogspot.com/

Yikes! Is English her first language?

Maybe she was home-schooled.

I liked her better as a foul mouthed troll. This is just boring.

Shellhead wrote:

ubarose wrote:

Ryan B. wrote: The aftermath...

jacquelinehowett.blogspot.com/

Yikes! Is English her first language?

Maybe she was home-schooled.

It's seems to me you know very little about homeschooling.

Dr. Mabuse wrote:

Shellhead wrote:

ubarose wrote:

Ryan B. wrote: The aftermath...

jacquelinehowett.blogspot.com/

Yikes! Is English her first language?

Maybe she was home-schooled.

It's seems to me you know very little about homeschooling.

Maybe he was public-schooled.