Long reviews.

Or should that have been meaningful oh well never mind.

Id rather read a long review which has been properly structured rather than something short, sweet and structurally looks like an egg has been thrown to a wall.

But then that's not exactly short and sweet is it? I've seen many a short but not what I would call a sweet review.

[quote="steerpyke"]

SaschaT wrote:

koshkha wrote:

Goethe, our most famous poet in Germany, once wrote to his sister: ""Da ich keine Zeit habe, Dir einen kurzen Brief zu schreiben, schreibe ich Dir einen langen ...". ("Since I have no time to write you a short letter, I'm writing you a long one"). And this expresses perfectly what I think about a good review: Writing lengthy reviews about everything doesn't require any intellectual skills (except literacy). You just go ahead writing and writing and writing like a robot with no regard to or mercy for the reader. The real mastery of writing consist in choosing what is important. The writer has the choice - and only if this choice is made wisely, the outcome will be a good one.

Excuse me but that's a badly used quote - I didn't say that, I wouldn't have a clue what Goethe said about anything. Please be careful how you edit quotes. Cheers

This brings up an interesting point about the art of writing short reviews. Some sites have the option to write "express reviews" and the like. Basically a shorty snappy and concise overview in say seventy five words. Its much harder than you think, i cant do it but it is an interesting exercise for testing your writing skills.

Dave did this exercise at one time as a challenge thing. I tried one. He bet that reviews that were less than so many words (can't remember exactly how many nor 900 I think) would be pushed to get a VH even if they carried all the relevant information.

Another member, I can't remember who it was, tried to write a review in the minimum word count or something to prove it was impossible to write a VH review with that kind of word count, but kind of spoiled the whole thing IMO by going to people’s accounts and directly influencing the rates given to the review.

Vax wrote:

Id rather read a long review which has been properly structured rather than something short, sweet and structurally looks like an egg has been thrown to a wall.

So what you’re saying is that you’d rather read a good long review than a bad short review? Hmmm… Why, in your opinion, is a single, long review better than a shorter, hopefully concise, review?

Thingywhatsit wrote:

Dave did this exercise at one time as a challenge thing. I tried one. He bet that reviews that were less than so many words (can't remember exactly how many nor 900 I think) would be pushed to get a VH even if they carried all the relevant information.

900 words is more than adequate for most category of review. Indeed I am turned off any book or DVD review that is more than this, as I dont want the damn book or film plot, just a review to tell me should I bother watching/reading!!

I think if this kind of concise review does not get VH because "just" it is not perceived to be "long" enough, then it is poor rater behaviour, which has indeed led to this 1500-3000 word epic review situation that we now have.

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Another member, I can't remember who it was, tried to write a review in the minimum word count or something to prove it was impossible to write a VH review with that kind of word count, but kind of spoiled the whole thing IMO by going to people’s accounts and directly influencing the rates given to the review.

yes I remember that situation, I think the word count was very low (120 words or something, whatever the min is)

Quote :

but kind of spoiled the whole thing IMO by going to people’s accounts and directly influencing the rates given to the review

I have no idea of this situation, though if they were going into other peoples guestbooks asking for rates, then that's not permitted under ciao ruling. I am interested and not being argumentative here, but in what way did they influence the ratings. I don't want this to turn into a witch hunt for the person that did it, but wonder what you perceive as influencing the ratings

Influencing the ratings is going to people's GBs and asking for a rerate in order to skew the ratings to a ratio that would prove the author's hypothesis.

But had they actually changed the review and justified asking for a re-rating ? In early days on ciao, many people try to improve their reviews, I did it, we all do, and ratings at this stage seem dreadfully important, though of course they aren't. Many members offer to re-rate when the member writing the review has a better understanding of the site.

no they didnt want a Vh rating...they wanted to show that you cannot write a VH review in 120 words i.e. the word count limit should be increased...

But the writer got some VH ratings anway, from what I recall...hence the GB messages.

It was an established member, they were familiar with the workings of the site.

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Another member, I can't remember who it was, tried to write a review in the minimum word count or something to prove it was impossible to write a VH review with that kind of word count, but kind of spoiled the whole thing IMO by going to people’s accounts and directly influencing the rates given to the review.

Vax wrote:

Id rather read a long review which has been properly structured rather than something short, sweet and structurally looks like an egg has been thrown to a wall.

So what you’re saying is that you’d rather read a good long review than a bad short review? Hmmm… Why, in your opinion, is a single, long review better than a shorter, hopefully concise, review?

Nope. I said "structurally," which I feel is different than a review which is very concise i.e. with information. Structurally there are short reviews where the prose is not consistent, keeps referring to other areas of content which are displayed elsewhere or has info which is slightly misleading; its like giving a product 4 stars out of 5 and yet the reviewer doesnt like the product or hasn't given the product proper thought. Also all of a suddent some younger members feel the need to use Text language which adds to the feeling of being lazy when submitting a review. Being Dyslexic myself doesn't help either and despite a short/long review being concise, if it hasn't had the attention of at least some attempt to correct grammar and spelling checked I'll comment and my rating will be based purely on whether the review stands as a vital opinion of a product in the market AND whether the review has been structured properly. You don't just get a concise review without having to detail a lot - and if that sits outside the establishment who want short reviews then there's a price to be learnt there.

And there you go, proof of my Dyslexia; just spelt "sudden" wrongly which is located on the 5th line of that comment!

Why IS dyslexia such a hard word to spell?

Sometimes I find it is because of the "y" before the "d" and the "x" where some people could spell it "dislecsia," not taking into account the "x" sound.

Vax wrote:

Nope. I said "structurally," which I feel is different than a review which is very concise i.e. with information. Structurally there are short reviews where the prose is not consistent, keeps referring to other areas of content which are displayed elsewhere or has info which is slightly misleading; its like giving a product 4 stars out of 5 and yet the reviewer doesnt like the product or hasn't given the product proper thought. Also all of a suddent some younger members feel the need to use Text language which adds to the feeling of being lazy when submitting a review. Being Dyslexic myself doesn't help either and despite a short/long review being concise, if it hasn't had the attention of at least some attempt to correct grammar and spelling checked I'll comment and my rating will be based purely on whether the review stands as a vital opinion of a product in the market AND whether the review has been structured properly. You don't just get a concise review without having to detail a lot - and if that sits outside the establishment who want short reviews then there's a price to be learnt there.

But concise means "to the point", not just with regards to packing information. The review you describe might be short but if those are what you have as flaws surely the review is not sweet to begin with?

In some cases the reviews are flawed - thats why we have comment boxes as Im sure you are aware of - but if the info is presented well and clearly explained amidst poorly structured paragraphs with spelling errors Ill be pushed to make a comment on it whilst giving a fair rating based on the info contained within the review itself. Ive just never found a short review which has impressed me much whereas long reviews usually cover any question I wish to ask...

But the flaws you point out in short reviews are the same that apply to longer ones. Often the difference between a short review and a long review is the amount of padding included to bulk out the word count. I usually find it's descriptive of features etc rather than reporting experience or opinion.

Writing concise reviews (i.e. little waste, not an indication of length) is a skill that can be learned, but with Ciao rewarding "manual reviews", who wants to learn that skill or who wants to have the integrity of a reviewer when there's a shout for a diamond?

Yes I am all for good writing as well for I took short and sweet to be well, short and well written. Of course there are all the rushed efforts which is not something to be impressed by.

Quote :

but if the info is presented well and clearly explained amidst poorly structured paragraphs with spelling errors Ill be pushed to make a comment on it whilst giving a fair rating based on the info contained within the review itself

Change of subject a bit Aaron, but isn't that how we all feel about exceptional reviews. Why comment ? Why ?

I'm unsure why you seem to be referring to me, but are, in fact, quoting Vax.

Rachel's a bit complicated at times.

Or knackered. You tend to get like that after 55 years of life. Sorry about that. I thought I was quoting Aaron.

I wasnt talking about Exceptional reviews...